Sitting of 5 May 1892

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Ordered, That Mr. Baumann, Mr. Sydney Buxton, Sir John Colomb, Mr. Cremer, and Mr. Kimber be Members of the Select Committee on London County Council (General Powers) Bill, with four Members to be added by the Committee of Selection.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Pilotage Provisional Order, Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill, without amendment.
QUESTIONS.

  STAMP DUTY AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
  SIR R. PAGET: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a cheque drawn upon the treasurer of a Friendly Society—whether a banker or not—and endorsed "not negotiable," is liable to be charged with Stamp Duty, or whether it would be properly exempted there from under the provisions of Section 15 of the Friendly Society's Act, 1875?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I may refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 21st March, when I gave the grounds upon which it is held that such a cheque is liable to be charged with Stamp Duty.
  SIR R. PAGET: "Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether in that answer he referred to a cheque not so marked—does it equally apply to the case in my question?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am informed that is so.

  MAGHERAFELT COURTHOUSE.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the Irish News of the 28th April, containing a report of a statement made by County Court Judge Neligan, Q.C., at Magherafelt Sessions on Wednesday last, to the effect that the state of the Courthouse there was "a shame and a scandal"; whether he is aware that His Honour felt obliged to adjourn the Court, to the great inconvenience of the public; that the same Judge has repeatedly called attention to the intolerable state of the Courthouse; and that the matter was brought before the Grand Jury of Derry at the last Assizes, but was opposed by the County Surveyor; and whether, considering the danger to the health of the Judge and the Bar and the inconvenience to the public, some steps will be taken to render this Courthouse fit for the sitting of a Court?
  *THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): The subject-matter of this question is one over which the Executive Government have no control, this matter resting wholly with the Grand Jury. I have endeavoured to obtain some information on the matters of fact, but so far no Report has reached me.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that again on Friday the Judge referred to the objectionable smells and state of the Court as dangerous to health, and will he address a remonstrance to the Derry Grand Jury on the subject?
  *MR. JACKSON: As I have said, we have no responsibility, power, or control in the matter, but I have endeavoured to gather some information as to matters of fact.
  MR. SEXTON: Unless something is done we must take the opinion of the House upon the subject.

  LARNE WORKHOUSE.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the Report of Colonel Spaight, Government Inspector, containing most serious complaints as to
  150
  the state of the workhouse at Larne, County Antrim; whether he is aware that, at the meeting of the Larne Board of Guardians on Wednesday last, Dr. Killen, the Medical Officer, said he agreed with most of what Colonel Spaight had complained of; whether he will state what these complaints are; and if, in the interest of the poor inmates, anything has since been done to remedy the causes of complaint?
  MR. JACKSON: The Report of the Local Government Inspector mentioned was generally of a satisfactory nature in regard to the Larne Workhouse. He suggested, however, an improvement in the sanitary arrangements, and also the making of some structural alterations, in both of which the Medical Officer concurred. The Board of Guardians have taken steps to carry out the sanitary proposals, and the Local Government Board are communicating with them in regard to the proposed structural alterations.

  REGISTRATION OF TITLES OFFICE (IRELAND).
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that the Central Office for the Registration of Title, under The Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, passed in August last, did not open for business until the 1st April, although the Act came into operation on the 1st January last; if he will explain the cause of this delay; whether he will state the number of vesting orders now awaiting registration, and if only one mapper has been provided who cannot well complete more than two or three maps per diem, notwithstanding the vast number of orders awaiting registration; and will the Treasury make arrangements to provide an extra staff until the accumulation has been disposed of?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I have been informed by the Registrar that the Office for the Registration of Title was opened on the 1st January, 1892, as required by the Act, but that he was not in a position to complete the registry of estates until about the 1st April, as he had not the means of making the maps required

  151
  by the Act until then. The question of additional assistance for mapping purposes is how under the consideration of the Treasury. There are now 1,255 vesting orders awaiting registration. Only two of those cases are in the Registry Office. The remainder have not left the Land Commission. I sincerely hope that the necessary assistance will shortly be afforded to the Office, in order that this large number of applications may speedily be brought under the provisions of the Act.

  ALDERSHOT CHIEF PAYMASTER.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary, War Department, if he will explain why, when Colonel Rippon recently vacated the post of chief paymaster at Alder shot, Lieutenant Colonel Whittington was appointed to it over the heads of twelve officers senior to himself in addition to nine others who had already been passed over for promotion, in view of the fact that, in January, 1888, the Accountant General transmitted to the Treasury a Report upon the accounts of the 5th Lancers, from which it appeared that the fraudulent deficiencies which had been discovered in them were partly attributable to the fact that Colonel (then Captain) Whittington, as paymaster of the regiment, exercised no control over the books or accounts, and that Sir Reginald Welby, in a letter of the 11th February, 1888, to the Financial Secretary of the War Office, stated that the frauds resulted from a combination of ignorance and indolence on the part of successive paymasters, including Colonel (then Major) Whittington, and added that the Lords of the Treasury thought Major Whittington deserving of grave censure, and regretted that the Secretary of State should not feel able to make him pecuniarily liable for any part of the loss?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK,): Colonel Whittington was appointed to the Pay Department in 1878, and, owing to pressure arising from active, operations at the time, was at once placed in charge of the accounts of a regiment, which were in confusion, with scanty experience and insufficient help. The censure
  152
  passed on him by the Treasury ten years later had reference to his trusting too much, in 1878, to a fraudulent clerk. During the 14 years which have elapsed' since then Colonel Whittington has shown himself to be a first-rate paymaster; he was specially recommended for promotion for his services in Egypt; was specially appointed to superintend the introduction of the new pay system at Aldershot, the largest pay charge in the Army; and his promotion was due to his capacity for special work, for which he was strongly recommended by the military authorities under whom he had served.

  SMALL-POX AT KING'S NORTON.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that in the year 1891 there were two fatal cases of malignant small-pox in the King's Norton Union—namely, those of Henry Burnett and George Weake; that in the case of Henry Burnett no official record has been made, either on the certificate of death or by the Medical Officer, that he had been vaccinated and that this was proved by four large marks; and that in the case of George Weake the Medical Officer, in his annual Report, stated that it was a case of the most malignant kind, and that, as far as he could glean, there had been no proper vaccination, as no marks were visible; whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of George Weake's widow and two elder daughters that he had two large and remarkably deep marks of vaccination on his left arm, and also to the father's statement that he remembers his being vaccinated; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made into both of these cases, with a view of having truthful official records of them entered?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I have received no information that there were two fatal cases of small-pox in the King's Norton Union during the year 1891. The only representations; that I have received on the subject are to the effect that there was one such case, which would appear to be that of George Weake. As regards this case,

  153
  I have been informed during the present week that certain relatives of the deceased alleged that he bore marks of vaccination, and that the father of the man remembers his being vaccinated. On the other hand, the Medical Officer of Health in his annual Report, distinctly states that no vaccination marks were visible. It does not, however, appear to me that there is any sufficient ground for an inquiry with regard to these conflicting statements.
  MR. COBB: It is very important to have correct information of such cases. Will the right hon. Gentleman have further inquiries made, and also into the case of Henry Burnett?
  *MR. RITCHIE: I have no information as to the other case; but I presume what I have said of the one case, would apply to the other. I think it would be extremely difficult from any inquiry made now to ascertain the facts of the case in connection with people who are now dead. I do not see how it is possible to obtain correct information. But, even if it were possible, I do not think it is denied that persons who were vaccinated in their youth, and who have not been re-vaccinated in later life, are liable to attacks of small-pox.

  "POST OFFICE LONDON DIRECTORY."
  MR. WEBB: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain why the copies of the Post Office London Directory, which used to be supplied for the use of the public to local metropolitan offices, are not now so supplied, and would there be any objection to rescinding such recent Order, if any?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): The Post Office London Directory is not an official publication, and it is not the practice to supply copies to post offices for the use of the public, or even copies to all post offices. Directories are, of course, supplied for official purposes where they are required, and when a Directory is available at the public counter without much inconvenience applicants are allowed to refer to it.

  DIVULGING CONTENTS OF TELEGRAMS.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Postmaster General under what circumstances the girl Palfrey, recently convicted at the Birmingham Quarter Sessions of conspiracy, and fined £10, was not proceeded against for the offence of divulging the contents of a telegram, of which she was admittedly also guilty; and what is the penalty attaching to that offence?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Among the charges on which the girl Palfrey was indicted was one of divulging the contents of a telegram, but the essence of all the charges was that of conspiracy to defraud, and to this she pleaded guilty. After such plea, I am informed that it would have been an unusual course to proceed with other counts of the indictment based on precisely the same facts. All of these facts were fully disclosed to the Court. Moreover, the Judge himself suggested that it would be unnecessary to press the other counts. The divulging of the contents of a telegram, like conspiracy to defraud, is a misdemeanour, and the maximum penalty prescribed for it by Statute is twelve months' imprisonment with or without hard labour.

  BALLYCLOUGH PROCLAIMED MEETING.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by what authority, on whose sworn information, and for what reason, the public meeting announced to be held at Ballyclough on 25th April was proclaimed and suppressed?
  MR. JACKSON: I am informed that the meeting referred to was not publicly announced, but the Police Authorities had reason to know that it was being arranged, and that its object was to denounce and intimidate certain persons who had taken evicted farms. They accordingly directed an information to be sworn, upon which the meeting was proclaimed.

  IRISH LAND SUB-COMMISSION IN COUNTY LIMERICK.
  MR. W. ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he can now state when the Sub-Commissioners will hold sittings at Newcastle West, Limerick County, to hear fair rent applications?
  MR. MADDEN: I have communicated with the Land Commission on the subject, and they inform me that it is not now in their power to fix a date for the meeting of the Sub-Commission, having regard to the claims of other districts.

  EDINBURGH TELEGRAPH STAFF.
  MR. WALLACE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will be able to reply, at an early date, to a Petition in October last from the second class telegraph staff in Edinburgh, praying that the first class, which has been reduced by twelve, may again be placed at the proportion of one in three, at which it has elsewhere stood since 1881?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The prayer of the Petition cannot be acceded to. The office in question was carefully revised last year. Substantial improvements were made, which benefited the whole staff; and the numbers of each class were adjusted not by proportion, but according to the duty to be performed.

  THE "ROYAL SOVEREIGN."
  MR. PENN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the engine-room artificers of the Royal Sovereign are to be reduced in number from 18 to 12; whether the difference in numbers is to be made up by the promotion of chief stokers to the position of engine-room artificers; and whether experience shows that chief stokers so promoted are as efficient as engine-room artificers in keeping in working, and, in the event of a breakdown, in repairing, the various engines and machinery in ships of war?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The complement of engine-room artificers in the Royal Sovereign will be reduced from 18 to
  156
  12 as stated, and the difference made up by the substitution of six chief stokers for six engine-room artificers, as it is considered that these men, from their long experience, are better qualified for certain kinds of work such as water-tenders, than junior engine-room artificers. Chief stokers would not be so efficient for making good defects in the event of a breakdown of machinery as engine-room artificers; but it is not intended that they should be borne for such a purpose, the number of engine-room artificers now allowed being considered sufficient to meet all mechanical requirements.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the recent engine trial of the ironclad Royal Sovereign gave the estimated contract speed, under natural and forced draught, continuously or only collectively; whether the trial was in smooth water, and with or against the tide; if so, is it intended further to test and record the vessel's speed in rough weather, and against a head wind, for the purpose of ascertaining how long she can be navigated under forced draught without injury to the boilers or crew confined in the engine-room; and whether it is true that a slight leakage was observed during the four hours' trial in the tubes of two of the boilers?
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: There was no contract speed to be attained in the case of the Royal Sovereign. The contract was for the development of 9,000 h.p. for eight hours, and 13,000 h.p. for four hours. The actual development averaged 9,640 h.p. for eight hours, and 13,000 h.p. for four hours. The corresponding speeds realised were about 16¾ and 18 knots, as against estimated speeds of 16 and 17½ knots. The trial was in smooth water, with and against tide. Trials at sea are made as matters of course after ships are commissioned, but no trials under forced draught, such as those suggested, are contemplated. They are not required. The engine-room is never under air pressure. A slight leakage did occur, during the fourth hour only of the maximum test, and it was then found to be due to preventible causes.

  LEWES NAVAL PRISON.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty when he anticipates having the Naval Prison at Lewes in a condition to receive the certificate of the Home Office; and whether he is aware that the absence of this certificate renders the imprisonment of the men sent to the Naval Prison illegal?
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: No such certificate from the Home Office is necessary, as the Admiralty have full powers under Statute to make their own regulations for the administration of Naval Prisons, including the appointment of Inspectors. In consequence, however, of the Visitors having questioned the size of the cells at Lewes Naval Prison, the Admiralty requested Sir Edmund Du Cane to inspect the Prison; and, acting on his, suggestions, steps are now being taken to bring the cells more into conformity with modern requirements.

  CHINESE IMMIGRANTS TO SINGAPORE.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the large importation of Chinese into Singapore, whence they are shipped to Java, Borneo, Sumatra, Queensland, and other places in the Eastern Archipelago, under contract as labourers, and that they have to work for the "agent" until the charges for their transport have been paid off; whether he is aware that last year 160,000 Chinese were thus imported into Singapore, of which number not 10,000 had the remotest chance of stopping on British territory, or where British law exists; and whether, considering the abuses to which the contract system is liable, the Government can see their way to put down this traffic and prevent Singapore from becoming a vast receiving and exporting centre for what differs little from the slave trade?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The Secretary of State is aware that a large number of Chinese immigrants come to Singapore, and that some, but
  158
  only a small proportion of them, go on from Singapore to Java, Sumatra, and other places, under contracts of service by which they are bound to repay out of their earnings the cost of their passages. The Returns for last year have not been received, but it appears from the Returns for 1890 that the whole number of Chinese who arrived at Singapore was 127,936, of whom about 117,000 paid their own passages, and on landing were free to go where they pleased. I may add that in the same year 80,000 Chinese returned from the Straits Settlements to China viâ Hong Kong. A Commission has recently inquired into the subject in the colony, and the Secretary of State is expecting to receive the Governor's recommendations on the best means of preventing abuses which may arise from the system of contract emigration from China to and through Singapore.

  NAVAL RATIONS.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is, approximately, the difference between the total value of the rations allowed annually to officers, seamen, and marines of the Fleet, and the amount actually served out; why is not the whole of this difference returned to the men; and can he state, approximately, the extra cost to the country that would be incurred for storage, freight, &c., if the whole ration was taken up?
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: The difference between the ration to which the seaman is entitled and that which he takes up is, approximately—value of total ration per man per diem, 9½d.; value of what he takes up, 6d.; paid as earnings per man per diem, 2½d. The difference of 1d., which amounts to about £45,000, is principally due to the difference between prices paid as savings and the actual cost of the article, which varies from year to year. The taking up of savings is purely optional on the part of the men, though it is very popular in the Service. It in not possible to estimate approximately the extra cost to the country that would be incurred for storage, freight, &c, if the whole ration was taken up. Probably the freight might be slightly increased, but, on the other hand, the country

  159
  would gain by being able to calculate more closely the consumption which is now variable, owing to savings, and by reduction of clerical staff on board ship, the calculations consequent on the savings system occupying much time and giving much trouble.

  THE BREAD UNION (LIMITED).
  MR. WALLACE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the proceedings in the liquidation of the Bread Union (Limited) are subject to his cognisance, under Section 25 of the Companies (Winding-up) Act, or otherwise; and, if so, whether he can say if the result of a recent criminal prosecution of the promoters of the Company by the liquidator was a promise to pay £1,000 in cash and £4,000 in bills extending over eighteen months; whether the cost of this procedure amounted to £1,500 or what other sum; whether he can say how much of the fruits of the prosecution have been actually recovered for the benefit of creditors; whether the liquidator is contemplating or taking steps to prosecute civilly the directors or any of them; and whether it is the duty of the Inspector General in company liquidation, or of whom else, to restrain prosecutions by liquidators through their solicitors that are likely to result mainly in large solicitors' and other costs, but in little, if any, gain for creditors?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I am informed that the Bread Union (Limited) is being wound up voluntarily under the supervision of the Court. The proceedings are not within the cognisance of the Board of Trade under the 25th section of the Companies (Winding-up) Act. I am, therefore, unable to furnish the information asked for by the hon. Member. The Act of 1890 does not empower the Inspector General to exercise any control over the administrative action of liquidators in such cases.

  MEDWAY BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it has come to his knowledge
  160
  that nine Poor Law Guardians returned to the Medway Board were elected by forged election papers, and that 180 of such forgeries have been detected; that 68 of these were brought to the notice of the Returning Officer before the declaration of the poll, and by him admitted to be forgeries; whether he is aware that many of the votes so forged were in the names of ratepayers who were known to be dead or to have left the district; that these papers, to the number of 68, were returned as undelivered to the Returning Officer and by him locked in a safe, from which they were abstracted and forged, and presented; and whether, under all the circumstances, he proposes to institute an inquiry to test the legality of the election of the nine Guardians, and bring the forgers to justice?
  *MR. RITCHIE: The only communication which the Local Government Board have received on this subject is one from a solicitor who, on behalf of certain candidates who were defeated at the recent election of Guardians, applied to the Board to direct an inquiry, and alleged that the election was conducted in a loose and illegal fashion, resulting in a number of voting papers being purloined and at least 85 being forged. The Board have pointed out, in reply, that they are only empowered to decide questions as to the validity of elections of Guardians, where the right of any person to act as a Guardian is formally submitted to them for their determination under the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1842. The Board have stated what information they require for the purpose of such an appeal. If an appeal is received by the Board, and it should appear that there is ground for contention that votes have been lost to particular candidates, or allowed to other candidates, in consequence of irregularities in connection with the voting papers, and that the result of the election has been thereby affected, the Board, before arriving at a decision on the appeal, would, if there were any dispute as to the facts, direct a local inquiry by one of their Inspectors. As regards the suggestion in the question that an inquiry by the Board is necessary for the purpose of bringing the forgers of voting papers to

  161
  justice, I must point out that the forging of a voting paper is a criminal offence, and that no action on the part of the Board is necessary to enable any person to institute criminal proceedings against any individual who is alleged to have been guilty of the offence.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is it not in the power of the Local Government Board to make an inquiry?
  *MR. RITCHIE: I have stated under what conditions the Board consider it their duty to investigate such a case. If the Board were to examine on oath charges against persons for forgery of papers it would be contrary to the usual practice, and persons might afterwards be prosecuted for forgery alleged to have been committed, and their case would be prejudiced by the examination by the Local Government Board.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: The Clerk of the Union might be examined as to how the papers left his custody: they could not have been taken without his knowledge.
  *MR. RITCHIE: If representation is made to the Board that primâ facie evidence exists as to the irregularity, then it will be for the Board to direct an inquiry, and then, no doubt, it will be desirable and necessary to examine the Clerk.

  MOUNTJOY CONVICT PRISON.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is usual for Prison Governors in Ireland to visit all prisoners under their control at regular intervals to hear their complaints, if any, with the view of having such complaints, if any, remedied as far as possible, consistent with the health, safe custody, and discipline of the prisoners; whether it is usual to make changes in the employment of prisoners from time to time at their own request, and as a reward for good conduct; whether there are any, and, if so, how many prisoners permanently employed, weather permitting, at outside work in Mountjoy Convict Prison; whether any of those prisoners have been so employed from two to five years; for what special reason has the
  162
  Governor of Mountjoy refused to allow Thomas O'Leary, whose, conduct has been good, a change of employment from the shoemaking shop to outdoor work; and will he see that O'Leary's request is granted?
  MR. JACKSON: The reply I have received from the General Prisons Board in regard to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the question is in the affirmative. Of the prisoners at the present time employed in Mountjoy Prison at outdoor work, 14 have been so employed continuously for two years or upwards, but no promise of permanent employment at any particular form of labour is given to any convict. As regards the case of the particular convict mentioned, I notice that the hon. Member has changed the wording of the question. When I answered formerly the question was as to permanent change of employment. That request was refused, but it would not be correct to say that he had been refused change of employment.

  HAMPSTEAD HEATH RAILWAY STATION.
  MR. BRODIE HOARE; I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is taking any steps to prevent the recurrence of such an accident as recently happened at Hampstead Heath Station at that station and others at which there is a large holiday traffic?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have not yet received the Inspector's Report on the Hampstead Heath accident, but I have been in communication with the Railway Company, and am informed that, although the plan has not been actually decided upon, such structural alterations will be made and increased means of access to the platforms provided before Whitsuntide, as will, it is hoped, together with other means taken by the Company, remove all risk of further misfortune. As regards other stations, I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 28th ult. to the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottingham (Mr. John Ellis).

  APPOINTMENT OF NURSE AT DONEGAL WORKHOUSE.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Board of Guardians of Donegal Union recently gave notice, by advertisement in the papers, of their intention to appoint a properly qualified person to the post of infirmary nurse in the workhouse at a salary of £20 per annum with rations and apartments; whether it is the fact that, notwithstanding this advertisement, the said Board appointed a person with no qualifications of training, nor testimonials of any kind, who did not even appear before them, rejecting the only other candidate who had a certificate of training from the Royal College of Surgeons, Belfast, and testimonials of character and efficiency as a nurse from clergy and laymen of all denominations; whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the matter; and whether any step will be taken to remedy this action of the Board?
  *MR. JACKSON: The Local Government Board have already declined to approve of the appointment referred to, on the ground that the person elected had not the requisite experience. The Guardians have arranged for a new election to take place on the 14th inst.

  KILLYBEGS PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the Killybegs Petty Sessions district, which is one of the most extensive in the County Donegal, stretching westward 23 miles and eastward 10 miles, there are at present only two magistrates, whereas a few years ago there were six magistrates; whether he is aware that much inconvenience is caused by the Bench being thus undermanned to the magistrates themselves and the inhabitants generally, more especially when either of the magistrates is absent from the Bench from illness or any other cause; whether he is aware that, although five-sixths of the population of this Petty Sessions district is Catholic, both the magistrates are Protestants, and that frequently no
  164
  Petty Sessions can be held owing to their absence from the Bench; whether he is aware that some months ago an influentially signed memorial, approved of by both the magistrates who at present form the Petty Sessions Bench, the gentry of the locality and the Catholic and Protestant clergymen being among the signatories, was presented to the Duke of Abercorn, recommending the appointment of a gentleman residing at Killybegs to the magistracy, a request, however, which was refused by the Duke; and whether the Government will take any step to remedy this public inconvenience?
  MR. JACKSON: I am informed that there are three local magistrates belonging to the Killybegs district, two of whom give a good attendance at Petty Sessions and that they are also attended constantly by the Resident Magistrate. No complaints have been made to the Lord Chancellor as to the want of an additional magistrate in the district, while, as a matter of fact, there appears to have been only one occasion during the last eighteen months on which no Petty Sessions was held for want of the attendance of any magistrate. I have no information as to the memorial referred to in the question, or as to the grounds on which it was refused; but I am informed that the Lord Lieutenant of the county is always ready to consider the names of any properly qualified gentlemen that may be brought before him.
  MR. MAC NEILL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the third paragraph of the question. Is that true?
  MR. JACKSON: I do not know that it is the fact.

  DONEGAL POLLING STATIONS.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there is no polling station for the districts of Glencolumbkille and Carrick, in the County Donegal, nearer 'than Killybegs, which is nine miles from Carrick, and 20 miles from Glencolumbkille; whether he is aware that there are upwards of 500 voters living further away from Killybegs than Carrick; and whether, having regard to the great hardship and inconvenience

  165
  entailed on voters by being compelled to undertake so long a journey to record their votes without any public conveyance whatever, arrangements will be made for having polling stations in Carrick?
  MR. JACKSON: The polling stations for the County Donegal were fixed in 1885 in pursuance of the Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act of that year. There is no power to consider the alteration of the existing districts, except on a resolution being passed by the Chairman of Quarter Sessions and Justices of the Peace having jurisdiction in the county, that such a course is necessary.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the Chairman of Quarter Sessions? Is he aware that since County Councils have been established in England polling booths have been placed within three miles of every voter?
  MR. JACKSON: I am sure if the hon. Member will communicate with the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, and point out to him the inconvenience likely to arise from the present arrangement the representation will receive attention.
  MR. MAC NEILL: The Chairman is Dr. Webb, the well-known Tory pamphleteer.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the fact that no fewer than twelve temporary uncertificated clerks in the offices of the Irish Land Commission have been made permanent clerks without any examination; why were not the vacancies in the offices of the Irish Land Commission filled from the Lower Division of the Civil Service, and why were not those clerkships thrown open to public competition according to the practice adopted in filling up vacancies in clerkships in the High Court of Justice in Ireland; is there any precedent for this departure from the Civil Service Regulations, and what are the grounds for this breach of the usual practice in the filling up of such appointments; and will he have any objection to lay upon the Table of the
  166
  House a copy of the correspondence that has taken place on this subject between the Civil Service Commissioners and the Irish Land Commission?
  MR. JACKSON: Certain clerks in the Department of the Land Commission where, on the recent re-organisation of the Department, permanently appointed, they not holding certificates from the Civil Service Commissioners. I have dealt with the inquiries made in reference to this subject in my reply of 4th April. It would be contrary to practice to lay on the Table copies of correspondence between Departments on the subject of Departmental organisations.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these twelve temporary clerks are near relatives, either of the Land Commissioners, or of the Judges, or of other Irish officials?
  MR. JACKSON: No, Sir, I have no knowledge of the relationship existing between the clerks and the Land Commissioners. I think it would be a very extraordinary proceeding to discharge men who had been doing the work, and who had become efficient in the discharge of it, and to bring in men from outside who had no experience of the duties.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I shall bring up this matter again on the Estimates.

  DISEASED MEAT IN IRELAND.
  MR. WOLFF: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a letter in the Northern Whig of 30th April, from F. Adair, Secretary to the Belfast Master Butchers' Protection Association, stating that the meat of cattle slaughtered for pleuro-pneumonia was regularly sold for consumption in Belfast; whether he will inquire into the truth of this statement; and whether, if found correct, he will take the necessary steps to put a stop to this practice?
  *MR. JACKSON: My attention has been called to the letter, which appears to have been written under a misapprehension, or to have referred to some other circumstances. I am informed that neither in the case of Belfast nor any other part of Ireland have animals been slaughtered and sold for food unless

  167
  they were fit for consumption and so certified by the veterinary surgeons.

  THE LAND COMMISSIONERS IN CAVAN.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Sub-Commissioners who sat to hear land cases in Cavan last summer adjourned, leaving some 20 cases which had been listed unheard, saying that they would return in three weeks, but have not yet sat there since; whether he is aware that some cases in the district, which were entered four years ago, have not yet been heard; and whether the proper steps will be taken to have these cases disposed of?
  *MR. JACKSON: From the Report I have received from the Irish Land Commissioners it appears that the cases referred to have been already listed for hearing before a Sub-Commission which will commence its sitting at Cavan on the 16th inst. The Chairman of the Sub-Commission which sat in Cavan last year reports that he made no such statement as that attributed to him in the Question.

  LOUGH ERNE DRAINAGE.
  MR. KNOX: I gave notice to ask the Secretary to the Treasury in how many cases the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland have, up to the present date, raised the rents of tenants whose lands are alleged to have been improved by the Lough Erne Drainage; what is the total amount of increase; what is the acreage of the land alleged to have been improved, and on which the rents have been increased; and how many of such tenants held under judicial tenancies? I now wish to postpone this question until Monday next. At the same time I would say that it has already been several times on the Paper, and that the Board of Works in Ireland have had time to furnish a reply to it.

  ARMY MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary, War Department, whether any steps will be taken to remove the disability under which officers in the Army Medical
  168
  Department suffer as regards precedence at mess; and whether such disability was always in existence, and when instituted?
  *MR. BRODRICK: The officers of the Army Medical Department suffer from no disability.
  DR. TANNER: Has the long correspondence which has taken place on the subject in some medical journals been brought to the attention of the hon. Gentleman, and is he prepared to say that this grievance does not exist?
  *MR. BRODRICK: I have not seen the correspondence referred to by the hon. Member.

  ALLEGED ILLEGAL FISHING IN THE BANDON RIVER.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Jeremiah Murphy, who was fined £5 and costs at the last Innishannon Petty Sessions, for alleged illegal fishing in Bandon River, near Harleys Bridge, was convicted and fined by a majority of one by the Magistrates at Innishannon Petty Sessions, Mr. Cronin, R.M., dissenting, and that it was proved that Murphy was looking after cattle at the time he was supposed to be fishing; and whether, under the circumstances of the case, the fine will be remitted?
  *MR. JACKSON: I am informed that Murphy was fined as stated in the question; but it does not appear to be the case that the Resident Magistrate dissented from the judgment of the Court. If the defendant is of opinion that there are circumstances in his case which would warrant a reduction or remission of the fine, it is open to him to memorialise the Lord Lieutenant.

  GOLD MINING ROYALTIES.
  MR. MCDONALD CAMERON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what number of tons of gold ore have been raised and treated in the Dolgelly district from the time the junior Member for Merthyr commenced operations up to the present time; what number of ounces of gold have been produced, and what is the total value of such gold, and the

  169
  average value of gold produced per ton of ore; having regard to the fact that the cost of mining, tramming, and treating such ore, and extracting the gold therefrom, irrespective of wear and tear, depreciation of machinery, management, administration, and interest on capital, is stated by Dr. Le Neve Foster, in his Report to the Home Secretary for 1891, to be 8s. 5½d. per ton in the case of the Morgan Mine, and also having regard to the fact that large quantities of low grade ore exist in Wales and Ireland, and that the Government are not prepared to work the Royal mines on State account, will they grant to all persons desirous of working such Royal mines the same concessions, pending the Report of the Royal Commission, as those lately granted to the Morgan Gold Mine; whether he is prepared to reduce the royalties on gold obtained from private lands in Wales and Ireland to one per cent. on the product, and in the case of Crown lands to two per cent. on the product pending such Report; and whether, having regard to the fact that persons obtaining gold and silver in private lands in combination with copper, tin, iron, and lead are protected by the Acts of William and Mary, the Government are prepared to grant the same protection to owners of mines in private lands where gold is obtained in combination with zinc blende and other base metals?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: The number of tons of gold ore which have been raised and treated in the Dolgelly district from the time the junior Member for Merthyr commenced operations up to the 16th October is 26,819 tons, the number of ounces of gold produced is 17,280, the total value of such gold is £58,643, and the average value per ton of ore is £2. 3s. 9d. Concessions similar to those lately granted to the Morgan Gold Mine are being granted in other cases where the circumstances are similar. Having regard to the fact that the right of pre-emption in regard to copper, tin, lead, and iron ore has never, so far as is known, been exercised and that no zinc blende mine has been claimed as a Royal mine, it appears to be unnecessary to consider the suggestion that the Acts of William and Mary should be extended to blende ore.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to apply the principle of reduction in all cases, or does he intend to preclude me from them?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: That is a point which does not arise out of this question.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is a fact, as stated in the Mining Journal of the 16th inst., that the junior Member for Merthyr has requested that royalties on all gold and silver obtained from private lands in Wales and Ireland should be reduced to one per cent., as in the case of the Morgan Gold Mine, pending the Report of the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties; whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, refused to reduce the royalties on any other lands than those occupied by the Morgan Gold Mine; whether, in consequence of the Chancellor's communication to the junior Member for Merthyr, that,
  "So long as costs which are due from you remain unpaid, he is unable to enter upon the consideration with you of the question of the royalties to be paid to the Crown,"
  the junior Member for Merthyr has requested the Chancellor of the Exchequer to proceed at once to recover the costs by the sale of his property, rather than the matter shall be indefinitely delayed; and, whether he will proceed to the sale, with a view afterwards to the reduction of the royalties throughout Wales and Ireland; and, if not, whether he will reduce such royalties pending the decision of the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: My answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. As regards the second paragraph, there are other lands besides those occupied by the Morgan Gold Mine upon which I have consented to reduce the royalties. With regard to the third paragraph, I have declined to deal with the hon. Member for Merthyr so long as he persists in his refusal to pay the State what is legally due from him. The hon. Member has requested me to proceed to recover the costs

  171
  by levying an execution on his goods; but I understood that the feeling of the House was against gratifying the hon. Member in his desire for this sordid form of martyrdom. The position taken up by the hon. Member only prevents the Woods and Forests from dealing with him personally and with his personal affairs. It does not arrest the dealings of the Woods and Forests with other parties, and in these there is no delay. There is no reason, therefore, from that point of view, for selling up the hon. Member.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that gold has been found in a property, known as the Champion Mine (Moel-Isprey), near Dolgelly, in combination with zinc, and whether the persons who have discovered it are entitled to the same protection as they would if the gold had been in combination with copper or lead; and, if not, whether the Government are prepared to grant the same privileges to those working for gold and zinc in combination as has already been granted by the Acts of William and Mary to those who are obtaining gold in combination with copper or lead; and whether, having regard to the promising indications of gold which exist in several localities in Wales and Ireland, the Government will consider the advisability of having an informal survey made by practical geologists and experts in mining?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: So far as can be ascertained there has been no working for blende at Moel Isprey for some months past. Some blende was obtained in 1890, but although it was believed to contain a little silver, it was treated and disposed of as blende ore and no claim was made by the Crown in respect of it. The Acts of William and Mary were not passed for the protection of those working for gold in combination with copper or lead, but for the protection of the owners of copper and lead mines when gold or silver was found to exist in the copper or lead ore obtained from their properties. Neither the owners of Moel Isprey nor the owners of any other property producing blende ore have
  172
  expressed any anxiety that the Acts of William and Mary should be extended to blende ore, and there is no reason to suppose that any practical result would follow such an extension. Many practical geologists and mining experts, commencing with Sir Roderick Murchison, have at various times expressed their views on the indications of gold in Wales and Ireland, and there seems no justification for incurring the expense of a further informal survey.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether within the last 20 years the improvement of machinery has not been such that ore which at the time Sir R. Murchison expressed his opinion did not pay, would now be payable, especially with regard to the fact that the ore in the Morgan Mine was mined and treated for less than 8s. 6d. per ton?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I see no reason for a Government survey. Certain explorations are proceeding and certain results will follow; but there is no reason for the Government to take the matter in hand.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: Am I to understand that I am the only victim, and that royalties are not to be reduced in my case simply because I will not pay costs in the way he desires?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: My position is this—a business-like position to be taken up by any one in a position of trust—not to deal with the hon. Member, or—not to speak of the hon. Member personally—not to deal with parties who, after a Court of Law has awarded a debt against them, refuse to pay. It is impossible to deal with parties who say they will only pay their debts if they are sold up.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: Is it a fact that the law has not been revised for 300 years, and that the Judges are not agreed as to the construction of the Acts of William and Mary?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: Any hon. Member who has read the remarks of the Judges will see that I am perfectly justified in the action I have taken.

  POLYNESIAN LABOUR IN QUEENSLAND.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Government of Queensland is about to re-open the traffic in Polynesian labour, which was prohibited two years ago in consequence of the horrible atrocities that disgraced it; whether he is aware that a Royal Commission investigated the whole matter in 1885, and reported that it was a traffic accompanied with every circumstance of deception and cruelty; that they reported that, in the case of the labour vessel Hopeful—
  "The history of the cruise is one long record of deceit, cruel treachery, deliberate kidnapping, and cold-blooded murders. The number of human beings whose lives were sacrificed during the recruiting can never be accurately known";
  whether a Petition was signed in Queensland by 28,000 persons to get the murderers and kidnappers in the Hopeful pardoned on the ground that these atrocities had been common, and it was hard to make these men the first victims; whether these men are now out of prison, and whether he is aware that it was proposed to give them a public banquet in the colony; whether he is aware that the Royal Commission stated that the average mortality of these Pacific islanders on the sugar plantations of Queensland was 17·2 per cent. in one year, and that the wages paid are from 4d. per day, whereas white labourers earn from 5s. to 8s. per day; whether he is aware that several islands of the New Hebrides have been almost depopulated by this inhuman trade; and whether the Government will take steps to prevent what is virtually the revival of the slave trade under our flag?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Her Majesty's Government understand that the Queensland Legislature have passed a Bill for allowing the re-introduction of South Sea island labour to the colony; but no copy of the measure has yet been received. It is understood, however, that the Queensland Government are fully sensible of the necessity for stringent regulations for the protection of the labourers. The Commission to which the hon. Member
  174
  refers did not investigate the whole subject of the traffic, but it embraced an inquiry into three voyages, including that of the Hopeful, in which labour was recruited from the Louisiade Group and other islands adjacent to New Guinea. The Queensland Government, after the Report of the Commission, took measures for returning to their homes the whole of the surviving labourers recruited on these voyages. The hon. Member will find Papers on these subjects in the Blue Books [C. 4,584 and C. 5,883]. The hon. Member will see that there were special features in connection with these voyages, upon which a general condemnation of Polynesian labour could not fairly be based. We believe that such a petition as that mentioned in the third paragraph of the question was made, but not on the grounds stated by the hon. Member. It was alleged that the evidence on which the prisoners were convicted was unsatisfactory and insufficient to establish their guilt. The men were released, but I am not aware that there was any intention to give them a public banquet. As regards paragraph four, I do not find any statement to this effect in the Report of the Commission; but there appears to have been an exceptional mortality among the labourers recruited by the particular ships I have referred to. The money wage may be as stated in the question, but it must be borne in mind that the expense of the Polynesian labourer includes food, clothing, and lodging, and the cost of the return voyage as well as of the voyage to the colony. It is believed that the population of the islands of the Pacific generally is diminishing; but there are other causes at work, and in the absence of authentic records it is not possible to say to what extent particular islands may have suffered a loss of population from recruiting. Her Majesty's Government will support the Queensland authorities in any measures they may take to surround the engagement and employment of these men with proper safeguards; and if due precautions are taken, it should be possible to regulate the traffic without the evils which the hon. Member anticipates.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: In consequence of this very unsatisfactory reply, and in consequence of the Government

  175
  sanction of what is practically a renewal of the slave trade, I give notice that I will call attention to this matter again.
  MR. HOWARD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state what the reasons are which have induced Sir Samuel Griffiths to remove the prohibition against the introduction of Polynesian labour into the colony of Queensland; and whether, having regard to the kidnapping and crime inseparable from this traffic, and brought to light by a Royal Commission, he will take steps to induce the Premier to reconsider his determination?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The reasons assigned by Sir Samuel Griffiths are that there are not at present in Queensland a sufficient number of Europeans able and willing to do the necessary work, and that, in consequence, the sugar industry is suffering, and the productiveness of the lands of the colony will be diminished. I have answered the remainder of the question in my reply to the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith).

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN IRELAND.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what steps have been taken to provide labourers' cottages in the Inchigeela and Ballingeary districts of the Macroom Union; whether he is aware that at least 20 labourers cottages are wanted in these districts; and how many cottages have been built in these places?
  *MR. JACKSON: I am informed that 291 labourers' cottages have already been built in the Macroom Union. The Guardians appear to contemplate the provision of eighteen cottages for the two Electoral Divisions named. Of these, two have been erected, while, as regards the remaining sixteen, the Local Government Board understand the necessary arbitration proceedings, prior to entering into possession of the lands, have been taken by the Guardians.
  DR. TANNER: Have not several requests been made by the people of the district, who are very poor, that facilities should be given to the
  176
  Guardians to acquire land upon which to build cottages?
  *MR. JACKSON: I am not aware that there has been any difficulty on the part of the Guardians in this matter.

  PRESENTATIONS TO SONS OF NAVAL OFFICERS.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Exeter, as a Charity Commissioner, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence between the Charity Commissioners and the Governors of Christ's Hospital, with reference to presentations to sons of naval officers?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter has asked me to state on his behalf that he has no correspondence upon the subject to lay on the Table.

  THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the following extract from the Report of the Director of the National Gallery for the year 1891:—
  "Meanwhile the collection has been and is being increased by the acquisition, through bequest as well as by purchase, of numerous pictures, for which absolutely no space exists on the walls nor could be provided even at the fatal cost of breaking up the present classification; the adapting of hanging screens as an alternative has had the unfortunate effect of crowding the galleries and impeding the circulation of visitors: it will be impossible to employ this expedient further without causing serious inconvenience";
  and whether he can now inform the House what answer Government proposes to give to the memorial of the Trustees, complaining of the increasing inadequacy of space for hanging pictures in the Gallery, and the danger from fire to which the collection is exposed from its close contiguity with St. George's Barracks?
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): Replying also to a similar question on this subject by Mr. Kenrick, said: The memorial of the Trustees of the National Gallery has received, and will continue to receive, the careful attention of Her Majesty's

  177
  Government; and while we cannot agree that the want of space is at this moment as absolutely urgent as the Trustees insist that it is, we fully admit that the time will soon come when some addition must be made to the existing buildings. That subject will have to be considered—and I may say is now being considered—in connection with the future arrangements as to St. George's Barracks. Under these circumstances, I cannot add much to the answer I gave the hon. Member last year, except to say that the additional precautions against fire which I then promised have since been carried out.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that anything short of the total demolition of these barracks will remove the risk of fire from the National Gallery? I should also like to know whether the Gallery is only separated by a not particularly thick wall from that portion of the barracks which contains the canteen, the sergeants' mess, and the married couples' quarters?
  *MR. PLUNKET: I did not know that the married couples' quarters are particularly inflammable; but, as I have already informed the hon. Member, we have taken every possible precaution to protect the adjacent part of the National Gallery. I may also say that the future of the barracks is under consideration at the War Office.

  POLITICAL ECONOMY IN IRISH SCHOOL BOOKS.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has noticed a resolution of the Belfast United Trades' Council, adopted at a special meeting on the 2nd ultimo, declaring certain passages in the Lessons on Political Economy in the Fifth Book of the Irish Commissioners of National Education to be contrary to the fact and prejudicial to working men who are Trade Unionists; whether he has observed by the selection of extracts from the Fifth Book circulated by a Special Committee of the Belfast Trades' Council that the lessons in question contain a number of absurd or inaccurate propositions and statements,
  178
  as, for instance, that if a law were made to fix the rent of land, the only effect would be that the landlord would no longer let his land, and whether this passage was brought years ago to the notice of the House of Commons; whether, at the instance of the London Trades' Council, passages of an analogous character were many years since struck out of the school books in use in England; and whether the Irish school books will now be revised, with a view to expunging propositions and statements which are manifestly absurd or grossly incorrect?
  MR. JACKSON: The Commissioners of National Education report that the Fifth Book is at present under revision, and that the Lessons on Political Economy will be revised.
  MR. SEXTON: If this revision is not properly carried out, I shall ask for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the matter.

  THE PAY OF SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the fact that the establishment of a preparatory grade in the scheme of the intermediate examinations for the present year will considerably add to the already onerous duties of the superintendents at these examinations, it is the intention of the Intermediate Board to increase the remuneration paid to superintendents to £20, the amount given them for the first four years of the Board's existence?
  MR. JACKSON: I am informed that it is not proposed to make any alteration in the scale of remuneration.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it a fact that superintendents take only £15, out of which they are expected to pay their hotel bills and travelling expenses? I should also like to know whether, if the Board have plenty of money, they will not return to the earlier amount?
  MR. JACKSON: I should not prescribe to the Board how they should pay the superintendents. They must know better than anyone else what should be paid to those officials.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS IN SCHOOLROOMS.
  MR. H. GARDNER: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in view of the difficulty that still exists in some places of obtaining the use of schoolrooms for public meetings, he will cause a copy of the unanimous Resolution of the House in favour of the right of public meeting in elementary schools to be circulated amongst school managers?
  *THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): The object of the Resolution was not, as I understood it, to confer a general right of public meeting in any school-house, unfettered by any securities against misuse and irrespective of there being any other suitable buildings available, and I cannot, therefore, assent to the issue of the suggested Circular; but, judging from the number of letters I have received from persons who are alarmed at the possible effects of the Resolution, I do not think it stands in need of any further advertisement.
  MR. H. GARDNER: Notwithstanding the Resolution of the House and the fact that the Government are about to bring in a Bill on the subject, does the right hon. Gentleman know there have been a number of cases of refusal for the use of schoolrooms in various parts of the Kingdom?
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: If that is the fact, it only shows that there is a necessity for the introduction of a Bill on the subject.

  ALLOWANCE IN LIEU OF OFFICERS' MESS.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary, War Department, whether Militia regiments quartered in barracks where there is no officers' messroom or mess accommodation, are entitled to the allowance in lieu of officers' mess accommodation prescribed in the Army Allowance Regulations, 1891; and, if not, whether he will be good enough to state the reason?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Army Allowance Regulations do not apply to the Militia when disembodied. Officers of
  180
  Militia receive an allowance of 4s. a day, under the Militia Regulations, to cover all mess expenses, including the hire of mess accommodation when it may happen that none is provided.

  SALARIES OF INDIAN OFFICIALS.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India what is the amount of the yearly salary and allowances of the Financial Member of the Council of the Governor-General, of the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, and of the Governors of Madras and Bombay respectively; for what period of years do these officers hold their appointments, and under what Statute or Regulation; what are the amounts of the retiring allowances or pensions to which these officers are respectively entitled on vacating the said appointments; can more than one such allowance or pension be held by an officer who has held more than one of these or similar appointments in succession; and what is the shortest period of service in each of these appointments which qualifies an officer for such allowance or pension?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (MR. CURZON,): The Member of Council in charge of the Financial Department draws a salary of Rs.76,000, without allowances. The Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal receives Rs.100,000, with allowances of Rs.9,750. The Governors of Madras and Bombay receive Rs.120,000, with sumptuary and household establishment allowances of Rs.95,000 and Rs.93,000 respectively. All these officers are appointed for five years, but in very exceptional cases the term has been extended for one or two years. The Lieutenant-Governor is appointed by the Governor-General, subject to Her Majesty's approval under 21 & 22 Vic, c. 106, s. 29. The Governors of Madras and Bombay and Members of the Governor-General's Council are appointed by Her Majesty by Warrant under 21 & 22 Vic, c. 106, s. 29; 24 & 25 Vic, c. 67, s. 3; 32 & 33 Vic, c. 97, s. 8. There is no retiring allowance or pension attached to any of these offices. But if they are held by a member of the Indian Civil Service or an officer of the Army,

  181
  he receives the ordinary annuity or pension under the Rules.

  RAILWAY RATES.
  MR. ROYDEN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether a Railway Company can, without infringing the conditions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act as to preferential rates, differentiate in the rates of carriage between different articles in the same class?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: This is a question of law, upon which a general answer could not properly be given. It does not necessarily follow that because articles are in the same class they are "same or similar merchandise" within the meaning of Section 27 of the Act of 1888.

  THE CASE OF DAVID FREEMAN.
  MR. MILDMAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that David Freeman, of Kingston, South Devon, invalided from the Raleigh at the beginning of last year after seven years' service, in consequence of a complete breakdown of his health, was granted a pension of 6d. a day for twelve months, during which time he was constantly ill; whether, on his presenting himself, last February, at the Royal Naval Hospital, Stonehouse, for a renewal of his pension, he was told that such fellows as he ought to work, and was further informed that his small pension would be reduced; whether he is aware that Freeman died a fortnight ago, within two months of this deprivation of pension; and whether he will make inquiry into the circumstances of the case so as to prevent the possibility of the recurrence of such treatment?
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: The hon. Member seems to have been misinformed in regard to the circumstances. I have made particular inquiry into the case, and the facts are as follows: David Freeman, A.B., after having served in the Royal Navy for only five and a half years, showed last year symptoms of rapid consumption, and was accordingly invalided from the Service. His disease being in no way
  182
  attributable to extraordinary exposure or exertion on service, he was granted a temporary pension from naval funds of 6½d. a day for 15 months, the maximum allowed by the Regulations. On the expiration of this period, his health not having improved, Freeman was granted an allowance of 6d. a day from Greenwich Hospital Funds, and he was in receipt of this special pension at the time of his death. It is very improbable that the medical officer made any such remark as that alleged, as it was on this officer's certificate, stating that Freeman was in indifferent health and almost unable to contribute to his own support, that assistance was given to him from the charitable funds of Greenwich Hospital.

  SHEERNESS DOCKYARD.
  MR. BYRON REED: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether ships of war, fitted out at Sheerness Dockyard, are taken to Chatham for commission when ready for sea; whether this is in conformity with the practice of former years; whether complaints have reached him that this practice puts the town and trade of Sheerness at a great disadvantage; and whether he can arrange for a fair share of commissions to be given to Sheerness?
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: Under the complete scheme of mobilisation which has been recently introduced, the object of the changes made has been to collect and keep together in an efficient state the ships, men, and stores of the Reserve. In consequence, the ships fitted out at Sheerness, when passed out of the Dockyard hands, are placed in the Fleet Reserve at Chatham, where the depôts of men, stores, &c, are also placed, and where there are extensive basins and other appliances useful for the purpose of rapid commissioning. This arrangement has worked well and economically, and no departure from it would be now feasible, as it would permanently disturb the whole principle of rapid mobilisation. On the other hand, a new Gunnery School has been established at Sheerness, which will have the effect of increasing the number of men permanently maintained in the port, and, further, a large number of second

  183
  class stokers are now stationed at the Naval Barracks there for training.

  ASSAULTS IN RAILWAY CARRIAGES.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the cases of assault and alleged assault upon women in railway carriages, he will consider the advisability of taking such steps as may be necessary to secure that there shall be on all trains efficient communication with the guard or driver, and that such communication shall be made available from the interior of the carriages as is already the case on some English and many foreign railways?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: As I have already stated, in reply to a question of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, efficient means of communication are now required by Statute to be provided in all passenger trains which travel more than twenty miles without stopping; and, as at present advised, I am not prepared to propose an extension of the law, though the matter will be carefully watched.
  MR. SUMMERS: In the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman are the present arrangements efficient?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes, Sir; I think so.

  PATENTS IN ENGLAND AND THE UNITED STATES.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is able to give the House any information with regard to the number of patents secured by Englishmen in the United States during the last five years, and also with regard to the number of patents in the same period that have been originally secured by Englishmen in the United States and afterwards taken out in the United Kingdom?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I understand that the number of patents issued by the United States Patent Office to citizens of the United Kingdom during the five years 1887 to 1891, was 3,394, but I have no means of furnishing the information asked for in the second part of the hon. Member's question.

  ALLOTMENTS FOR LABOURERS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many labourers cottages have teen built in the Millstreet Union; and whether, in the event of any schemes now being under consideration in this and other Unions in Ireland, the increased allotment of one acre can be given to the labourers?
  *MR. JACKSON: The number of cottages built in the Millstreet Union is 108. It will not be practicable for Boards of Guardians to grant the increased allotment of land until the enabling Bill becomes law.
  DR. TANNER: Could the new Act be adopted by the Guardians in regard to the schemes now in preparation?
  *MR. JACKSON: If any steps were taken, or if the Privy Council had sanctioned the scheme, the new Act could be applied.

  THE RE-AFFORESTATION OF IRELAND.
  MR. HARRISON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a proposal to purchase additional land at Knockboy, County Galway, for the purpose of planting trees, which has been brought under his attention, has resulted in the acquisition by the Congested Districts Board of any further land for re-afforestation; if so, what further area is at the disposal of the Board, and at what pace are the planting operations being carried out?
  *MR. JACKSON: The Committee of the Congested Districts Board has been appointed to examine into and report upon the forestry operations at Knockboy. The question of purchasing additional land will not be taken into consideration until the Report of the Committee has been received.

  PIERS IN SUTHERLAND.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to introduce a Bill under the General Pier and Harbour Act to confirm the Provisional Orders relative to the proposed harbours at Talmine, Skerray, and Portskerra, in the County of Sutherland?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I hope to introduce next week a Bill to confirm the Provisional Orders relative to the three piers in Sutherland. Delay has been caused by the omission of the promoters to comply with statutory requirements.

  GIBRALTAR SANITARY BOARD.
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state whether any, and, if so, what, concessions have been made to the deputation from the Gibraltar Ratepayers' Association?
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of the Secretary of State to amend the Sanitary Order Amendment Order, Gibraltar, 1891, in the following manner:—
  "That the civilian representatives on the Sanitary Board of Gibraltar shall be selected by the Governor from a panel presented by the Grand Jury, and that Clause 17 of the said Order, which gives extraordinary powers to the Governor in the case of special works, be repealed"?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I will answer both these questions at the same time. The Secretary of State has been anxious to meet as far as possible the wishes of the Gibraltar Ratepayers' Association; and if he can be assured that they will withdraw further opposition to the Order in Council, he will be prepared to make the concessions referred to by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. With regard to the first of those concessions, it is of course to be understood that the amendment will not vacate the seats of the present members of the Board of Sanitary Commissioners.
  MR. CAUSTON: Is that the only concession the Secretary for the Colonies can make?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Yes.

  CUSTOMS OFFICERS' MEMORIALS.
  MR. CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Board of Customs, by their Order of 16th April, 1892, directed that certain examining officers—who, on the 9th March, 1892, asked the Board of Customs to
  186
  transmit to the Lords of the Treasury certain Memorials addressed to their Lordships—
  "be informed that they cannot comply with their request, that the Memorials may be forwarded by the Board to the Treasury, and they cannot allow any appeal to the Treasury";
  whether the officers, by forwarding their Memorials direct to their Lordships, accompanied by a copy of the Board's refusal, are correctly interpreting the views of the Treasury, as shown in Treasury Minute, dated 26th February, 1866; and, whether the Memorials will be returned to the officers by the Board of Customs for transmission to the Treasury by the memorialists?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: The facts stated in the first paragraph are correct. The Board of Customs refused to forward the Memorials in question to the Treasury, since they regarded them as appealing against a decision which had been arrived at after the most exhaustive investigation by a Departmental Committee of Inquiry. It is open to the officials in question to forward their Memorials direct to the Treasury; but, as the Minute of 1866 states, it will rest with my Lords to consider whether the communication was one which should be addressed to them. The Board of Customs will have no objection to copies of the Memorial being given to the memorialists.

  EDINBURGH AND LEITH ARTILLERY DEPOTS.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary, War Department, whether it is the case that the barrack accommodation in Edinburgh and Leith is very unsatisfactory, and that, in consequence, the Royal Artillery Depôt at Leith is to be moved to Montrose; and whether it is the intention of the Government to spend any of the money under the Barrack Act in increasing the Barracks at Edinburgh and Leith; and, if not, why they are not doing so?
  *MR. BRODRICK: The Royal Artillery Depôt at Leith is to be moved to Montrose in order to be in closer touch with the Militia, and not on account of the condition of the Barracks at Leith. The Barracks at Edinburgh

  187
  are of an old type, but by intended re-appropriation after the removal of the Ordnance stores to another station, better accommodation will be obtained. Money obtained under the Barrack Act will not be expended on the Leith or Edinburgh Barracks, as it is more urgently required at other stations.
  DR. CLARK: Is it intended to rebuild some part of the Barracks?
  MR. BUCHANAN: Are the Barracks at present insufficient in their accommodation?
  *MR. BRODRICK: There will be more accommodation when the Ordnance stores are removed.

  NAVAL RETURNS.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has re-considered the difficulty experienced by Members of this House, and Her Majesty's subjects generally, in obtaining information as to the history and commissions of high class ships of Her Majesty's Navy; whether he can now give any hope that a Return will be furnished, giving a complete list of ships fit for active service, the dates at which they were ordered, reported ready, commissioned, paid out, and re-commissioned, together with the stations and services on which they have been employed; and whether, if such a Return is moved for, he will give it a favourable consideration?
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: I have had a Return prepared which the hon. Gentleman can have upon moving for it, though I do not think it adds much to information already available.

  THE ALLOTMENTS RENT.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Government can grant a Return from the registers under Section 15 of The Allotment Act, 1887, showing the rent per acre of the allotments which have been let since the Allotments Act came into operation, or whether he can say what is the average rent paid per acre on the whole of these allotments?
  *MR. RITCHIE(who replied) said: Neither the Local Government Board nor the Board of Agriculture has any information as to the rent
  188
  per acre charged in respect of the several allotments which have been acquired under the Allotments Act, 1887. I am not, therefore, able to state what is the average rent paid for those allotments. I do not see that there would be any advantage in obtaining the Return suggested. If the hon. Member desires information as to any particular allotment, I shall be happy to endeavour to obtain it for him.

  CHARGES AGAINST SCHOOLMASTERS.
  MR. ADDISON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can give the result of the special inquiries he undertook to make as to the discharge of their duties by Mr. A. Park, Head Master of the Albion Schools, Ashton - under - Lyne, Mr. E. Barlow, Head Master of the Parochial Schools, Ashton-under-Lyne, and Mr. Alderman Rudyard, principal teacher of the National Schools, Staly-bridge; whether he can give any information as to the condition and efficiency of these schools, and as to the manner in which these gentlemen discharge their duties; and whether the conditions of the New Code have been, in all respects, satisfied?
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: I have received a special Report from the Inspector, in which he speaks in the highest terms of the efficiency of the schools in question, and on the ability and attention to duty displayed by the gentlemen whose conduct was impugned by the hon. Member for Northampton. The conditions of the New Code have in every respect been satisfied.

  LORD WANTAGE'S COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
  SIR W. BARTTELOT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he will be able to fix a day for the discussion of Lord Wantage's Committee's Report on the terms and conditions of Service in the Army?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Had my hon. Friend put this question yesterday, I should have said definitely that this discussion would take place without fail before Whitsuntide, and even now I should be prepared

  189
  to find a day for the discussion; but I regret to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) is indisposed, and cannot I fear, for some weeks, be in his place in the House. I still hope, however, that he will be able to be here some day before Whitsuntide, and in that case I should fix the discussion in accordance with the original understanding. If, unfortunately, he cannot be here before Whitsuntide, I will choose the earliest possible day afterwards.

  PRISON CLOTHES.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER; I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the female members of the Salvation Army who were imprisoned under the provisions of the Eastbourne Improvement Act, 1885, were required to wear prison clothes during their imprisonment?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): In accordance with the 23rd Rule, 1st Schedule of the Prison Act of 1865, these prisoners were required to wear prison clothes.
  MR. CHANNING: Arising out of the question, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is now prepared either to introduce, or to assent to, legislation placing first-class misde-menants in this category.
  MR. MATTHEWS: No. Nothing has occurred to alter the answer I have previously made to the hon. Member.

  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN AND THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of calling attention to a question of urgent and public importance—namely, the restriction of trade and industry in respect to the unjustifiable refusal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal on equal terms, in regard to Crown Royalties, with persons engaged in the mining industry in this country.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in order. He has this evening
  190
  got a notice down traversing the Second Reading of a Bill on the Orders of the Day to the effect
  "That, in the opinion of this House, no legislation will be satisfactory that does not deal fully with the administration of the Mines Royal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: With the permission of the House I will withdraw the Motion.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman cannot do it.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: Well, then, Mr. Speaker—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not in order.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: As a personal matter, I submit that the language used by the right hon. Gentleman towards me was not such as was right in coming from a right hon. Gentleman occupying the position of one of the administrators of the affairs of this country; and upon that ground, with your permission, I will move the Adjournment of the House for a personal explanation.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not in order. He complains of an expression used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and there is no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will render an explanation of the expression which has given the hon. Gentleman offence.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I understand that while I left the House for a moment the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil complained of some of the language used by me. I should be sorry to wound the feelings of any hon. Gentleman. I spoke of martyrdom, and I presume he does not object to the use of the word.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: You have always been insolent to me ever since I have been a Member of this House.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I spoke of martyrdom. (Cries of "Sordid.") Does the hon. Member object to that word? I presume, then, that the word he objects to is "sordid." While I did not apply that term to the hon. Member personally, I thought that the whole proceedings connected with an execution, the selling of an hon. Gentleman's

  191
  goods, had a kind of sordid aspect. As, however, I do not wish even to seem to apply the expression to the hon. Member I readily withdraw it.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Perhaps I may be permitted to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can give us any information with respect to next week, and when we may expect to go into Committee on the Small Holdings Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hope is, unless business to-day and to-morrow takes a most unsatisfactory turn, that we may on Monday continue and finish with the Committee stage of the Small Holdings Bill. The only possible exception I imagine to the continued discussion on that stage will be that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may desire the Budget discussion. I may say that I have received a private communication from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, who is anxious that the Debate should not be taken before Thursday next, and I shall not, therefore, in any case, take it before that day.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to make an inquiry partly as to order and partly in the interest of the convenience of the House. The House will observe that the name of the Attorney General appears in connection with the discharge of an Order on the Criminal Evidence Bill. The House has already gone into Committee on that Bill, and I wish to ask whether it is in accordance with usage, under those circumstances, that there should be a Motion to abolish the Committee stage of the Bill? Then as to the question of convenience. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will remember that last Tuesday he said the first business to-day would be the Committee on the Criminal Evidence Bill, or so we understood him. Upon that understanding Members have prepared their Amendments, and, coming down with the intention of proceeding with the Committee stage, find themselves confronted with a Motion to abolish the Committee stage of the Bill, by placing it before a Law
  192
  Committee upstairs. I should like to know whether that is considered fair and convenient?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand the hon. Member makes two complaints against me. One is as to the answer I gave on Tuesday.
  MR. SEXTON: Not against you.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I, however, am responsible for the alteration, and, therefore, am the one who must reply. The answer I then made is clear in my recollection, although it had to be given at a great speed owing to the hour. I stated that the first Order would be the Criminal Evidence Bill, but I did not say the Committee stage. I understand, in addition to that, the hon. Member thinks I have not given sufficient notice, and he says that the Motion only appeared on the Paper this morning. That is undoubtedly true. I have thought, and still think, that a formal application of this kind of Notice is not required. The last desire I have is to force out any discussion, and, after the appeal made to me by the hon. Member, I shall be prepared to take the Motion as first Order tomorrow instead of to-day.
  MR. KNOX: I wish to know whether it will be competent for any Member, upon this Motion being put, to give Notice to-day that on the Motion being put to-morrow he will move an Instruction?
  MR. SPEAKER: Notice for an Instruction to a Standing Committee will not attach to any Order of the Day, but will be an independent Motion.
  MR. SEXTON: Then if the Bill were referred to a Standing Committee, it would be competent afterwards to move an Instruction to the Committee?
  *MR. SPEAKER: It would be perfectly in order.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On a point of order, and to prevent any misconception, do I understand your ruling to be that the Notice of Motion which is made by a Private Member would stand with Private Motions, and would come on with them, and would not come next in order to the Government Notice? I thought the hon. Gentleman gathered that he would have a right, if the Motion were carried, to

  193
  move this Instruction. I understand your ruling to be that would not be so—that he would only have the privilege of a Private Member, and would have to ballot for his place.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I said a Motion for an Instruction would be an independent Motion, without precedence.
  MR. SEXTON: Then it will be merely a matter of chance, and the right of a Member to move an Instruction to a Committee of this House will be destroyed?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Notice will have to be given of the Instruction. The Motion will be subject to the ballot, I understand the hon. Member asked me as to a point of order.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to know whether it is in order to move to discharge an Order in Committee upon a Bill the House has already gone into?
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is unusual, but no progress was actually made.
  MR. KNOX: As it appears from the Notice Paper to-day, progress had actually been made with this Bill. The Chairman had reported Progress on the 4th April.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is the technical expression. The Chairman of Committees must report something. He reports "Progress" although no progress may have been actually made—no progress, in the present case, was actually made.
  Motion postponed till To-morrow.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: There is a Notice of Motion standing in my name for to-night, as to the Financial Relations of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and I think I may persuade my right hon. Friend to stop the Business of the House at about eleven o'clock this evening. It would then be competent for any other hon. Member to bring on the Orders of the Day, and, if so, we might be able to get to the Motion. If it is impossible to bring it on before twelve o'clock, my right hon. Friend may suspend Government business at six o'clock to-morrow in order to take the Motion. My right hon. Friend says, however, there must be a distinct understanding that unless there is fair progress with business we shall not be able to stop.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  EDUCATION AND LOCAL TAXATION RELIEF (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 208.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 3rd May.]
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 2.
    MR. HUNTER: I beg to move the Amendment which; stands in my name, in page 2, line 35, to leave out the words "Parochial Boards," and insert the words "County Councils and Town Councils." The object of this Amendment is to secure that the whole of the money shall not be disposed of in this Bill, but shall have the advantage of the applications provided for County and Town Councils. So far as concerns the people who live in the rural districts, there is substantially no difference whether this money be given to the Parochial Boards or to the County Councils if the money is applied to the relief of the rates, with one important exception—that in connection with the County Councils there are certain rates which are payable exclusively by the owners. To these I presume the County Councils will not be permitted to apply any portion of this money. By this proposal £75,000 of Imperial money is to be devoted to the poor rate. Now, of the £75,000, at least £37,500 comes out of the pocket of what I may describe as the working class, which represents 73 or 75 per cent. of the population of Scotland. How much of the money you are distributing will that 75 per cent. obtain? Out of the £50,000, £25,000 goes at one fell swoop into the pockets of the owners of land, and the remaining £25,000 is distributed among occupiers and according to valuation. If we take 75 per cent. of the occupiers of dwelling houses in Scotland, we find that the total rent which they pay is under £2,900,000. The total valuation of Scotland is 24 millions a year, and we find the rateable value occupied by 75 per cent. of the population of Scotland is less than three millions. That is to say it is less than one-eighth. Consequently three-

    195
    fourths of the people of Scotland will not receive more than a sum that will slightly exceed £3,000 out of the total of £75,000, which it is proposed to distribute among the Parochial Boards. A fair valuation would show that three-fourths of the people of Scotland must have paid one-half of the £75,000, or £37,500, so that the great bulk of the voters in Scotland will be deprived of £34,000. Well that is a gross injustice. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate to contradict these figures if he can. I do not mean that he shall merely get up and say they are wrong: anyone can do that; but I challenge him to prove they are wrong. Now, Sir, that is the main point of my objection, but the other point of my objection relates to the persons who are going to receive this money—namely, the landlords. Now what will be the effect of making a present of £25,000 a year to the landlords of Scotland? Why, that when the property comes to change hands they will get a higher price for the property. That is a self-evident proposition. You cannot take a tax off land without putting into the pockets of the immediate possessor the whole capitalised value of that reduction. On the other hand, if you impose a tax on landed property the whole capitalised value of that tax necessarily falls upon the persons who happen to be the owners at the time. Well, I contend that to raise money by Imperial taxes which are not required for Imperial expenditure is an abuse of the powers of Government. To raise money in that fashion for the purpose of relieving the poor would be an injustice, but to raise money in that fashion for the purpose of oppressing the poor and relieving the rich, is about the most wicked thing that any body of men can do. On the grounds I have stated I maintain that we should reject this clause, or at all events we should substitute County Councils and Town Councils for Parochial Boards, because then, under the concession which has been made by the Government, there will be an alternative to the application of this money for the relief of the rates, and even if the Councils should, under the powers they have obtained, prefer to devote the money to the relief of the rates, their conduct would not lie at
    196
    the doors of the Government or at my own. Therefore I beg to move the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 35, to leave out the words "Parochial Boards," and insert the words "County Councils and Town Councils."—(Mr. Hunter.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    DR. CLARK: Unless this Amendment is carried, we shall be increasing at once the value of the land in Scotland by a million sterling. £37,500 will go into the hands of the landlords, and that, at 25 years' purchase, is a million of money. Now, will the Government give us some good reason for their proposal to increase the value of the landlords' property? Some of us are desirous of seeing a change in our land tenure, hoping by that means to make the most of the land; and we think, too, that the great increase in the land values due to the increase of population and the increase of wealth should go to the people who create it, and not to the few who enjoy the monopoly now. There are two ways of bringing that state of things about. One is by confiscation, and the other is by purchase. I am in favour of the principle of purchase; but if you are going, in the way I have pointed out, to add to the value of what we are going to purchase, then some of us will require to reconsider our decision. Surely the Lord Advocate, or some other right hon. Gentleman, will give us a reason for the course the Government propose to adopt, and why they do not agree to what I consider to be a fair compromise. As far as the next section is concerned, in which the distribution of £100,000 is dealt with, they have taken away the bulk of our opposition, and I think they should amend the proposal now before us, and agree to make the distribution on the basis of population instead of valuation. And why should they not agree to this fair and reasonable proposal of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hunter), that the whole of this money should go to County Councils and Town Councils to be used by them either for the reduction of rates or for such other

    197
    purposes as the Secretary for Scotland may consider desirable? The Government have made no actual compromise. The only thing they have done is to give a freer hand to the County Council in spending the money. I trust that the Government will allow this money to go to the County Councils and Town Councils who will be able to utilise it far better than the Parochial Boards, and that they will not allow the money to go at once into the pockets of the landlords.
    *MR. BARCLAY: I rise to support the proposal of the Government, and I do so in the hope that the grant will have the effect of giving to Parochial Boards a little more money to follow out their natural inclination of adding somewhat to the comforts of the poor in various respects. Though I am sure these Boards are desirous of doing all they can for the poor, yet, as the House will readily understand, they are compelled at times to hesitate before placing any additional burden on the rates. Feeling sure that this money will be spent in a good direction, I give my cordial support to the grant.
    *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. Barclay) who has just sat down, there is no doubt that the Parochial Boards will be able to take action in the way indicated by the hon. Member, although we do not propose in the Bill to limit or direct their action. As to the speech of the hon. Member, who moved the Amendment, I think it is not quite relevant to the subject, and it would be inappropriate to the present discussion to enter into such a large question as he has raised. It is still less my duty to follow the hon. Member in the figures he has given, because this is the third time during the present Session that we have had an expression of opinion upon practically the same point as that which the hon. Member has raised. Therefore, I feel relieved from repeating to the House the arguments already submitted in answer. I will only say that if we were to split up our proposals in the way that has been attempted, we should require to investigate into the application of all the sums of money that are
    198
    to be allocated, in order to ascertain how far the other proposals in the Bill operate to benefit the poor, and how far to benefit the rich. Many claims have been urged for sharing in this fund, and it was considered right that what may be called the lion's share should be given to County and Burgh Councils in order that they might use it as they deemed fit. I must say that the Amendment is not one I can accept. The hon. Member seems to forget that while the County Councils and Town Councils get as much money as they can out of the fund they have all along been willing to recognise the right of the Parochial Boards to some of it, and therefore I ask the Committee to assent to this proposed distribution of £50,000.
    MR. BRYCE: This is a question as between popular representative bodies and non-representative bodies, and we have much more confidence in the former than in the latter. But the matter has now become additionally complicated owing to the Government having agreed to give the County Councils and Town Councils, the power of applying the money going to them to purposes of general public utility. The Parochial Boards, on the other hand, will have to apply it to the relief of the rates, which we object to on financial principles generally. We also feel that the County Council, when they get the money, will be driven by popular opinion to apply it, not for the relief of the rates, but for other purposes of public utility. And we have, therefore, a stronger ground now than at first to desire the County Councils rather than the Parochial Boards to have this sum. It is said that if the Parochial Boards get this money more will perhaps be done for the poor than is done now. We desire that the poor should be liberally dealt with, but that is the duty of the Parochial Boards. We ought not to be told that it is necessary to get a grant from the Imperial Exchequer in order that they may do that which it is their duty to do.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: If the Government will concede that this money shall be given to the Parochial Boards only on the condition that they apply it to some purposes for

    199
    which it is not applicable at the present time, we should have no objection to the grant, except the objection that these Boards are not properly elected bodies. I hope it may be possible for the Government to make a concession in the direction of giving this money for the better education, for instance, of pauper children.
    MR. MARJORIBANKS: The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) has endeavoured to put a gloss on the words of the Bill. The Bill confines the Parochial Boards to using the proposed grant for the relief of the poor rates, but the hon. Member for Forfarshire says it does not mean that, but that the Parochial Boards may give additional comforts to the poor in the various parishes. If that view is accepted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite then the words "to relieve the local rates" are meaningless, and it seems to me, Mr. Courtney, that this is an undesirable encouragement to hold out to these Parochial Boards. Again and again have Bills been introduced into this House for reforming these bodies and putting them on a representative basis, and again and again they have been rejected by hon. Members on the other side of the House. If those Boards were representative we should not have so much objection to this proposal. To bodies like these we entirely object to give money, especially when we discover that this money is to be given not only for the relief of the rates, but for the purpose of encouraging further extravagance. I hope the House will reject the proposal, and will support the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend.
    MR. PARKER SMITH: I regret that the Government do not accept this proposal to take this money from the Parochial Boards and give it either to the County Councils or to some other body. I agree with the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, that the present constitution of Parochial Boards is thoroughly unsatis factory. He has spoken for the country districts, and we may speak equally for the towns. In the country you either have a very small body, or else the numbers are so great as to be totally unwieldy. In the towns there
    200
    is a wholly unsatisfactory system of election in which no one takes any interest. In the largest parishes in Glasgow and Govan the number of votes given have been almost preposterously small. Therefore I consider the constitution of these Boards is unsatisfactory; and, further, I think that the objects for which these Boards spend the money are not objects on behalf of which we can ask for any sympathy. The burden of the poor rates is a steady burden, and has been for a long time a diminishing burden. The only part of it which shows any increase is the charge for pauper lunatics, and I quite approve of the grant of £25,000 to relieve that burden, and gave my vote for it. These charges have recently risen very rapidly; but if you take the whole charge for the relief and maintenance of the poor, and leave out the charge for pauper lunatics, you will find it has very considerably diminished of late years. In 1887 the total amount paid for the relief of paupers, excluding lunatics, was £633,000; now it is £597,000. The population has increased largely and the actual charge has diminished, and even if you include the lunatics there is a decrease, because of the increased population and the increased valuation. In 1858 the poor rate was 1s. in the £, and the charge per head was 4s. 1d. Now the charge per head is just about the same, and the charge in the £ has gone down slowly and gradually to 8¼d. The whole charge has increased, very little while the valuation has doubled. It was £12,000,000 and it is now £24,000,000. If you take off this charge for pauper lunatics the rate of decrease of the poor rate would be something very considerable. Then it is urged that this money which is given to Parochial Boards will be spent on schemes which are outside the relief of the rates. I think that would be giving a dangerous power. Two special objects are mentioned. One is giving trained nurses to the poor and improving the hospitals; but this is a very small object. The amount contributed last year for trained nurses was only about £1,000, and I question whether it is necessary to spend any more. Then it is proposed to increase the grant to

    201
    widows who are left with children. That is a form of outdoor relief which, coming from a source outside the rates, would be very dangerous. You can trust the Parochial Boards to manage money economically when they have to raise it themselves; but I should be afraid to trust them with money which drops from heaven in the form of a Government grant. I do not feel that this is a proper channel for using this money, and I believe it is not necessary to expend it in relief of the rates.
    MR. ARTHUR ELLIOT: I agree with much that has been said about the constitution of these Parochial Boards, and I do not think that anyone can be satisfied with it. But the question is not how we should constitute the Parochial Boards, but how we should relieve the parochial ratepayers. It is the greatest fallacy to argue, as has been argued here to-day, that no one but the landlord benefits by the lightening of the parochial rates. The rates are shared by the owner and occupier, and they are largely paid by farmers. I have constantly found in the rural parishes considerable pressure from the rates, and I think, while so much is being done in one direction, the Government are perfectly right in seeing that some portion of this money goes in relief of these heavily-burdened people. A good deal may be said about Parochial Boards; but I would urge upon the Government that the parochial ratepayers are worth some consideration, and I hope they will adhere to the proposal contained in the Bill.
    MR. R. T. REID: The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) pointed out that this money might be spent in some way outside the local rates.
    MR. BARCLAY: I did not make that suggestion.
    MR. R. T. REID: I understood him to say so; but what I want to point out is that under this clause the Parochial Boards are required to spend this money in the relief of local rates. I think it is very questionable whether a Parochial Board could spend this grant for any object for which they were not willing to raise rates. I think, from the reading of this clause, they will be compelled to spend the money purely for the relief of the ratepayers, and they
    202
    will be unable to incur any fresh expenditure. I think that is a point which might be decided by putting down an Amendment later on which will make it clear beyond all doubt what the Parochial Boards can do.
    (5.45.) Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 220; Noes 137.—(Div. List, No. 105.)
    MR. LYELL: I wish to call attention to the manner in which this sum is distributed.
    MR. HUNTER: I should like to ask you, Mr. Courtney, if I have not a prior Amendment to that of Mr. Lyell?
    THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY,): It seems to me that both Amendments come about the same point.
    MR. HUNTER: I rise to a point of order, Sir. They are totally different and entirely distinct.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! They occur at the same point in the clause.
    MR. LYELL: I do not propose to go into the general question of the relief of the rates; but what I do wish to point out is that, according to the proposal of the Government, that relief will be granted to all parishes, and will be granted on the valuation. The Government proposals will press very hardly on those parishes where the valuation is low and the local burdens are high. They will press very hardly on the North of Scotland, and that is my special reason for bringing the matter to the notice of the Committee. As an extreme instance of the injustice of the Government proposal, I would point out that in a very densely-populated and rich parish the charges in respect of poor relief and school maintenance may be very low, whilst the amount of the valuation may be very high. Yet the maximum amount granted by this Bill would go to this parish, whilst the minimum would go to a parish which has a small valuation and has heavy burdens for poor relief and school maintenance. It may be further urged that in some parishes there may be from local endowments such a sum as would entirely meet the demands for poor relief and school maintenance, and these parishes might

    203
    receive a large sum under the grant, though the ratepayers have no burden upon them. The proposal is that there should be a relief of local rates, and I hold that the relief should be in proportion to the burden borne by the various parishes, and not according to population or valuation. The Government system of proportion according to valuation affords a rough and ready means of distributing this money; but I hold that the Local Taxation Returns afford to the Government and the Scotch Department an ample opportunity for distributing this money in proportion to the burden in each parish throughout Scotland. I have put down in my Amendment words referring to the "poor, school, and road rates," and I am quite aware that these rates do not exhaust the entire burdens falling upon the parishes; but they form a large proportion of of the burden, and I think the other items might be left out of account. The hon. Member for Aberdeen has an Amendment on the Paper which deals to some extent with the same question, and to which similar arguments would apply; and that I should be willing to accept if the Government will adopt the principle of distributing the money on the basis of population, though I do not think that is a scientific method. It may be very well now just after the Census; but the subsequent variations of the population will render it almost impossible to get an accurate Return on which to make the distribution. My proposal does give a means of getting an accurate Return on which to make the distribution.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 32, to leave out the words, "valuations of their respective parishes as such valuations," and insert the words, "the amounts levied in respect of poor, school, and road rates in their respective parishes as such amounts."—(Mr. Lyell.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman who has moved this Amendment will see that though, undoubtedly, arguments may be advanced in support of any principle of distribution, the principle of valuation is the principle which was adopted in the
    204
    Act of 1890, and was found the most convenient principle when we were dealing with distribution as between Town and County Councils, and the adoption of another principle in this Bill would be extremely inconvenient. I do not rise to argue the case, however, but for the purpose of reminding the Committee that on Monday last, now three days ago, a compact was entered into between the Government on the one hand and I think every section on the other side of the House on the other, with all the seeming solemnity on which such transactions can be based, and it was arranged that on condition that the Government made certain concessions the Bill should be got through this stage on Tuesday afternoon. On Tuesday ten minutes to seven came and the stage was no finished. I do not wish to utter any thing in the nature of complaint; but I must say I think the Government have some reason for thinking they have not been very well used by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It will be impossible to conduct the Business of the House on this kind of basis—a basis most useful in the conduct of Public Business—if when these compacts have been entered into and solemnly ratified they are departed from, as far as I can see, without any cause shown. I would venture most respectfully to press on the Committee the inconvenience of the course they are now adopting, and to request them, as the compact cannot now be fulfilled, to depart from it as little as possible.
    DR. CLARK: I thought the right hon. Gentleman would have said something which would have avoided further discussion. The question before the Committee really is whether we shall leave out the word "valuation." We can agree to strike that out, and then fight over whether "assessment" or "population" shall be inserted. I should like to point out the effect on the poorer districts, especially in the Northern counties of Scotland. If the principle of valuation is adopted, the six counties under the Crofters' Act will get £5,200; if you adopt the population principle they will get £7,000. The burghs in these counties will get £1,800 under population and £1,300 under valuation,

    205
    so the counties will practically lose £1,800 and the burghs £500 under the Bill. The Bill will give the money to those districts not requiring it, where there are villa residences and high valuations, while the poorer districts which require most will get least. Argyllshire is the only county which will get more on valuation than on population, and that is accounted for by the fact that there are in it a dozen residential parishes composed almost exclusively of villas. If the people living in these highly-valued districts contributed to the Exchequer at the same rate as the people in the poorer districts, it might not be so bad; but the poor man, by his unfortunate habits of drinking whisky and smoking tobacco, contributes more in proportion to his income than the middle class. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has some little cause to complain; but we all had reason to hope that the stage would have been finished before this, and could not foresee such a question arising, and if he will say at once why the Government will not accept the Amendment the discussion might be shortened. He might tell us why the Government are not going to assist the poorer districts. I think a very strong case has been made out against valuation and in favour of population, because it is by population that the money comes in.
    MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: On behalf of the counties I have the honour to represent, I must endeavour to press on the Government either to accept the principle of population, or to make some fairly intelligible statement which we can take to our constituents why they retain the inequitable principle of valuation, if they desire the discussion to be shortened. These two counties will get pretty much the same amount whichever principle is adopted—in fact, I think they would suffer a little loss on the population principle. The loss would be only £60, however, and that would be fully made up for if the money were given to those who most require it. I will give the right hon. Gentleman an instance of such clearness and gravity that it will convince him of the justice of my statement. In the Return of the Equivalent Grant distribution he will find that the
    206
    hard-working burgh of Lossiemouth will itself lose the whole of that £60. Under the principle of valuation that burgh will only get £26, whereas on the basis of population it would get £86. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, who knows the needy nature of large fishing populations, will agree with me that there could not be a more crucial instance adduced to show the inequity of keeping from the poor and giving to the rich. If the money be distributed on the basis of valuation it will go to those parts of the counties which hardly need it at all.
    MR. MARJORIBANKS: I only rise to make a suggestion which may meet the difficulty on both sides on this point. I would suggest that the Government might bring the matter to a speedy close if they consented to make the grant depend on a joint basis of population and valuation—to take the population and valuation, add them together, and divide. I speak against the interests of my own county in making the suggestion, as it would gain on the basis of valuation. Taking the counties, the total amount receivable out of a grant of £100,000 on the basis of valuation is £47,165, of population £38,141, and on the joint basis £42,653; on the basis of valuation for the burghs £45,030, of population £49,473, and on the joint basis £47,251; for the police burghs on valuation £7,843, on population of £12,384, and on the joint basis £10,113. If the Government adopt the joint basis they would meet the views of many of my hon. Friends, and it would cause material justice to be done to both counties and burghs.
    MR. MCDONALD CAMERON: I agree with the Mover of the Amendment, and not with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. As far as my burghs are concerned, we should get on the basis of valuation £62, as compared with £72 on population. Dornoch would get £55 on valuation as against £137 on population. If the compromise were accepted we should not be better off. I shall vote, however, against valuation, and I hope the Government will accept the Amendment and not the compromise.
    MR. FINLAY: If the question were whether or not the Amendment of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland should be adopted, I should certainly vote against it. It seems to me to be putting a direct premium on extravagance. But the question is whether "valuation of their respective parishes" shall stand, and I am disposed to vote for striking them out, because I desire to see the basis of population adopted.
    MR. LENG: I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I should not have risen, but I desire to put in a plea for, the large number of smaller burghs and police burghs. There are 69 Royal and Parliamentary burghs which, on valuation, will receive less than on population, and only ten that will receive more. But when you come to the smaller burghs and police burghs, the difference is still greater; 92 out of 106 will receive less, 31 will receive? only half of what they would receive under the basis of population, nine will receive only one-third, and three only one-fourth, while 14 would receive a little more. I say that, in proportion as burghs are populous and poor, you would by this system deprive them of the money they should get; whereas the wealthy burghs, where the rating is higher, would receive the benefit. The villa burghs would receive more, while the fishing, mining, or industrial populations would receive less and less. The more you look into the Return moved for by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen the more inequitable the basis of valuation appears to be; and for that reason I have an Amendment later on that you should take the mean proportion between valuation and population. That would be equitable. It would diminish the amount given to those who are receiving an excess, and add somewhat to the amount given to those who are deprived of what is fairly due to them. I appeal to the Government to accept the equitable principle of taking the mean between population and valuation. This is, perhaps, the most important question in connection with the Bill, and if the Government accept my suggestion they will give no show of warrant to the charge made against
    208
    them that the Bill is strictly a landlord's Bill in its inception and construction, but will demonstrate that they wish to do fairly between the wealthy and poorer counties and burghs.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I cannot confess to be impartial in this matter, and, therefore, I am a supporter of the proposal of the Government in the Bill, and I hope that they will retain that proposal and continue to distribute this money as former money has been distributed. My right hon. Friend says his suggestion is a compromise; but I dislike that still more, for I find that Edinburgh—which would undoubtedly suffer if the basis of population were adopted—will, if the combination of population and valuation be adopted, practically pay the whole of the difference in the burghs. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts the compromise, there is at least one person who will vote against him.
    MR. JOSEPH BOLTON: I wish to say a word in support of the Government on this question. My hon. Friends appear to be divided into two parties—those who would receive more on the basis of valuation and are against the proposal for population, and those who would receive more under population and are against the basis of valuation. This seems to me to be a Bill for the relief of local taxation; and, if so, whom is it intended to relieve? Those who contribute to taxation, I suppose. Consequently, as taxation is contributed on the basis of valuation, it is a reasonable and right course that relief should be distributed on the same basis. I have said my hon. Friends are guided by their interests; I am not, for I find, on looking through the list, my constituents will receive just the same amount, whether it be on the basis of population or valuation. Under these circumstances, I am, perhaps, a more impartial judge as to the best mode of distributing this money than are my hon. Friends round me.
    MR. C. S. PARKER: A great variety of principles has been suggested to guide us in this matter. The hon. Members for the Inverness Burghs and for Edinburgh frankly avow that their vote is given solely in the interests of their constituents; but I

    209
    shall not follow that example. The distribution ought to be made on some sound principle. There are three suggested. One is to give it to the poorest, and neediest; but I think to accept that might encourage local extravagance, for if the poor rate were doubled the amount would be larger, and if economy kept the rate down the amount would be smaller. Another principle is that it should be distributed according to the population, the view being that the money coming from Imperial sources and chiefly from the largest population ought to go back to the largest population. The third proposal is to go by valuation, on the ground that the whole policy of these Imperial contributions is to relieve ratepayers in proportion to their liability, which depends on valuation. But that policy is not accepted so fully in Scotland as in England. Therefore in Scotland, I think, we might take the compromise proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) as a very fair one. Seeing that the money comes from Imperial sources we might bring in population, and as it is to relieve local burdens we might bring in valuation.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not pro pose to accept another compromise, for the fortune of my suggestions, however much they may have been accepted, has not been very remarkable, and I am unwilling to put hon. Gentlemen a second time in the position of breaking faith deliberately—
    MR. BUCHANAN: I rise to order. I beg to ask you, Sir, if the right hon. Gentleman is justified in using the words against hon. Gentlemen on this side that they broke faith deliberately?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Deliberately entered into.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Whether the right hon. Gentleman is justified I do not know. It is perfectly consistent with Parliamentary usage.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Do I take it from you, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman was in order in stating that hon. Gentlemen on this side deliberately broke faith?
    THE CHAIRMAN: There are abundant precedents for such language.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was going to say, "Hon. Gentlemen broke faith deliberately entered into," and I do not believe there is a single Gentleman who hears me who doubts the accuracy of that statement. I rise for the purpose of referring to a suggestion which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick. That right hon. Gentleman has made a suggestion, but it has not been received with unanimity on his own side of the House; and therefore I might content myself with opposing the Amendment. By dividing this money according to valuation, you run the risk of helping those who need it least, and helping least those who need it most. It is possible to conceive an extreme case; that there might be a place in which the population was so wealthy that there would be no poor at all, and consequently no poor rates to be relieved. At the same time, the valuation might be so high that it might receive an enormous amount of money. No such case exists in Scotland of course; but I must observe that I think there is something to be said for the compromise suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick on its merits, and I would recommend the House to accept it. Again, I would respectfully say that I do trust hon. Gentlemen will be content with recording their opinions upon this matter by their votes, because I think that every argument that can possibly be urged on the subject has been urged from almost every constituency in Scotland, and let us proceed to deal with the few remaining clauses of the Bill.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has spoiled the really good case which he had, up to a certain degree, by the heated and excessive language which he has used. ("Oh, oh!") I am not addressing myself to the hon. Member for Eenfrew—I am addressing myself to the right hon. Gentleman. I say that even if the words of the right hon. Gentleman which he has addressed to us on this side of the House were really in order, I do not think that they were at all justified, in this instance, by anything that has occurred. The right hon. Gentleman talks of us

    211
    breaking faith, and he talks of a solemn compact. It was with me, if anyone, he made the contract; and what I said was this—that we had every expectation of being able to finish that Bill last night. There was no more than a strong expectation and hope expressed on our part, and I took occasion at that time to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the compromise come to with regard to one part of this measure, that dealing with education, did not at all do away with the necessity for ample discussion, just as much as if no compromise on that subject had been arrived at, upon the question of the Universities, and the Parochial Boards; and this question which is before us now has nothing whatever to do with the matter that was in the right hon. Gentleman's view when the compromise was entered into. But I am entirely with the right hon. Gentleman, if only he had put it a little less high and used a little less strong language. I think he would have reason to complain if he saw the Scotch Members debating these matters at undue length after all that has passed. So far as I know, it is the intention and desire of my hon. Friends to get through this business as quickly as possible. This matter upon which we are now engaged is a new matter, a perfectly fresh subject, and a matter which intimately affects the constituency of every Member who has agreed to the compromise. If the right hon. Gentleman had taken action sooner, and if hon. Members on this side had not made their little speeches, there would not have been time for the Council of War which took place on the other side of the House within the last quarter of an hour, and in which the right hon. Gentleman sought very properly the opinion of his own friends upon this matter. If the Debate had been unduly curtailed the opportunity for that Council would not have occurred, and the right hon. Gentleman would not have arrived at the same wise decision at which he has now arrived. However, I am glad he has come to that decision, and I can assure him with regard to the rest of the Bill that though there are one or two like this, perfectly new topics, which must be dealt with, my
    212
    hon. Friends and myself will do our best to curtail discussion on them, so that we may not waste time in any way over it. But, at the same time, I must repeat what I said before, that when a perfectly new provision in this Bill comes up it is rather too much to expect that we should be contented with going to a division without having any opportunity of expressing our opinions on the subject.
    MR. LYELL: In consequence of the compromise which has been arrived at, I beg to withdraw the Amendment which stands in my name.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. HUNTER: I think the fairest principle would be to divide this money as nearly as possible amongst the people who paid the money. I say as between counties and burghs that unquestionably burghs pay more of the Imperial taxation than the counties, Some of my hon. Friends who represent counties have altogether ignored the urban element in their counties. I maintain that the just principle is the principle of population; and that principle also coincides with the principle of assessments and rates. If you take the principle of valuation, then you relieve the rates in the rural districts by twice the proportion in which you relieve the rates in burghs, and therefore it is an unjust principle. But as the Government has met us half way in this case I shall not move my Amendment.
    DR. CAMERON: I should like to know how the right hon. Gentleman is going to fix the population?
    (6.40.) On Motion of Sir C. J. PEARSON, the following Amendments were agreed to:—In page 2, line 32, after "valuations," insert "and population"; in line 33, after "valuations," insert "and population."
    MR. CALDWELL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, to leave out from "or," to "Act," in line 42, inclusive. The object of this Amendment is to stereotype the £100,000 for the County and Municipal Authorities. Then they will have the increment that takes place owing to the increased school attendance. Supposing the schools get the

    213
    benefit of the increment, it will no more than meet the extra cost they will be put to by the increased school attendance. If they get this extra grant they will have a less deficiency to assess for, and the school ratepayer will have so much the less to pay, and the amount will be distributed one-half on the owners and one-half on the occupiers. Therefore I hope the Government will have no objection to accept the Amendment, which does not alter the principle of the Bill, and will simplify its provisions.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 38, to leave out from the word "or," to the word "Act," in line 42, inclusive.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    SIR C. J. PEARSON: This Amendment proposes to alter the scheme of this Bill in a simple and comparatively trivial respect, but I venture to say that the hon. Member has not accurately estimated the effect of the clause as it stands. I cannot accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    (6.44.) On Motion of Sir C. J. PEARSON the following Amendments were agreed to:—In page 3, line 4, after "valuations," insert "and population"; in line 5, after "valuations" insert "and population"; in lines 7 and 8, leave out "to the relief of local rates levied by," and insert:—
    "(a.) to the relief of local rates levied by; or (b.) in aid of the expenses incurred, or to be incurred, under any statutory power from time to time vested in."
    In line 9, after "determine," insert—
    "Or (c.) under any scheme of public utility framed by them respectively, subject to the approval of the Secretary for Scotland."
    MR. HUNTER: I shall move my Amendment in the form of an addition to the Lord Advocate's proposal, and that is that the Government shall have it in their power to give the County Councils and Town Councils power to apply this money for other purposes of public utility subject to the approval of the Secretary
    214
    for Scotland. In regard to that, I venture to think that there are a certain number of objects of such obvious public utility that these bodies should be at liberty to advance the money for these objects without going to the Secretary for Scotland at all. The objects which I have enumerated for the relief of any one or more of which this money may be applied are the following:—
    "(1.) The relief of unemployed workmen in time of distress. (2.) The establishment and maintenance of labour bureaus, or in contributing to such establishment and maintenance. (3.) The better housing of the working classes. (4.) Contributing to pensions for working men and women over sixty years of age, or to the fatherless children of workmen. (5.) Procuring allotments or small holdings, and advancing money by way of loan to assist in stocking such allotments or holdings. (6.) Extension of crofters' holdings. (7.) The development of the sea fisheries, and advancing money by way of loan to fishermen for boats and tackle, and for the purchase and management of mussel beds. (8.) Establishing and maintaining, or contributing to the establishment and maintenance, of art galleries, and the purchase of pictures and other works of art. (9.) Establishing, maintaining, or contributing to the establishment and maintenance of public libraries. (10.) The promotion of technical education. (11.) Providing public halls, parks, gardens, places of recreation, and free gymnasia. (12.) Paying fees of scholars in evening or continuation schools. (13.) Paying the reasonable travelling expenses of members of county councils. (14.) Making or improving harbour accommodation."
    I venture to think that the application of the money to the relief of unemployed workmen is an object which is well worthy of the sympathetic consideration of the House. I think this money might also be applied in establishing and maintaining Labour Bureaus, or Town Councils might be enabled to contribute money to such Labour Bureaus if established and maintained by other persons. I know that in the future the labour question will increasingly force itself upon the attention of Members of this House, and I think no objection can be taken to this proposal. As to the housing of the working classes, the Town Councils have already statutory powers to contribute the money for that purpose. I venture to say there can be no harm in giving the Town Councils and County Councils power to use a share of this money for the purpose of old age pensions. I do not make it compulsory, but I leave it

    215
    to their discretion. Another object of the greatest possible importance is the procuring of allotments or small holdings, and advancing money by way of loan to assist in stocking such allotments or holdings. Another meritorious object also is the extension in certain parts of Scotland of the crofters' holdings. This money might be very usefully applied to the other objects enumerated.: Why should not power be given to apply some portion of this money for objects which I think we are all agreed are of the highest utility in the view of the coast counties of Scotland? It would be a great advantage to some towns like Aberdeen, where there have been picture galleries established by the liberality of private individuals, if it was in the power of the Town Councils to apply such portion of the money as they thought fit to complete those art galleries, and to supply them with works of art. As to public libraries, the public library in Aberdeen is labouring under the greatest difficulty. The fund created by the rate of a penny in the pound is exhausted, and public subscriptions are solicited to enable them to have a house in which to put their books. Surely it is most desirable that power should be given to apply a portion of the money for such a purpose as this. With respect to all the objects I have enumerated, I think they are objects of such manifest and obvious public utility that the Town and County Councils might well be allowed power, if they thought fit, to apply the money for these objects without the necessity of coming to the Secretary for Scotland for his approval. This Amendment, if carried, would have the effect of saving the Secretary for Scotland from the trouble of receiving an immense number of applications in connection with the distribution of this money. I venture to hope, under these circumstances, that these words will be added to the Bill.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 7, to leave out "to the relief of local rates levied by," and insert "to any one or more of the following purposes:—
    (1.) The relief of unemployed workmen in time of distress. (2.) The establishment and maintenance of labour bureaus, or in contributing to such establishment and maintenance. (3.) The better housing of the working classes.
    216
    (4.) Contributing to pensions for working men and women over sixty years of age, or to the fatherless children of workmen. (5.) Procuring allotments or small holdings, and advancing money by way of loan to assist in stocking such allotments or holdings. (6.) Extension of crofters' holdings. (7.) The development of the sea fisheries, and advancing money by way of loan to fishermen for boats and tackle, and for the purchase and management of mussel beds. (8.) Establishing and maintaining, or contributing to the establishment and maintenance, of art galleries, and the purchase of pictures and other works of art. (9.) Establishing, maintaining, or contributing to the establishment and maintenance, or contributing to the establishment and maintenance of public libraries. (10.) The promotion of technical education. (11.) Providing public halls, parks, gardens, places of recreation, and free gymnasia. (12.) Paying fees of scholars in evening or continuation schools. (13.) Paying the reasonable travelling expenses of members of county councils. (14.) Making or improving harbour accommodation, or any other object of public utility approved by the Secretary for Scotland."—(Mr. Hunter.)
    SIR C. J. PEARSON: I do not know whether, after the Amendment which I have proposed, the hon. Member will consider it necessary to press for this catalogue, or programme, or whatever he chooses to call it. In so far as these objects are purposes of public utility, they are within the Amendment which I have inserted, and surely it is rather much to ask the Committee to pronounce upon them and to affirm that they are all purposes upon which a Town or County Council should be entrusted to spend the money. It seems to me that the two safeguards which the Government propose are reasonable and proper, and, indeed, necessary. One is that in any application of this money to purposes beyond those for which Councils have now powers, they should come to a responsible Minister to get his assent; and the other, which is equally important, is that they should carry with them to him a scheme for his approval, for it seems to me that the reduction of the proposals to a scheme supplies a test not merely of sincerity, which may be assumed, but of feasibility. On these grounds I oppose the Amendment.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I appeal to my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment? He deserves great credit for having drawn out an exhaustive list of all works of public utility, and, if I may offer him

    217
    any advice, it would be that he would do good service if he had it handsomely printed, and forwarded a copy of it to every Town and County Council in Scotland, in order that they may always have before their eyes a catalogue of those works of public utility out of which they may find schemes to be approved by the Secretary for Scotland. If at any time they find themselves with a little money in their hands for which they have no use, they could then ransack this list. As the Bill was originally drawn, I approved the idea—in our difficulty of disposing of this money—of in some way indicating to the Town and County Councils a certain number of good objects to which they might apply the money; but now that the Government have conceded, at our instance, the enabling of these Public Bodies to give the money in aid of the expenses incurred under any statutory power they may have, or under any scheme approved by the Secretary for Scotland, I think my hon. Friend will see that it is hardly necessary to go into details.
    MR. HUNTER: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that which is perfectly true. Circumstances have considerably changed since my Amendment was put down, but still I thought it desirable to occupy for a few minutes the attention of the Committee in order that Town and County Councils might see that there is a large sphere of objects of public utility upon which this money may well be expended; and I believed that if the short legal terms of the Lord Advocate's Amendment were the only thing: they knew, they might not really appreciate their wide powers. I agree that the words of the Lord Advocate are as wide as the objects which I have enumerated, and, therefore, I will gladly accede to the suggestion, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. CRAWFORD: I am glad to say that by the courtesy of the Lord Advocate I have been made aware that the Government are willing to accept this Amendment, and I will, therefore, only say that its object is to give to Town and County Councils the power of accumulating the
    218
    funds which we now place at their disposal for the various purposes we have been discussing. Without that power of accumulation, the power of dealing with this money would be almost useless, and I accept the adoption of the Amendment by the Government as an extremely valuable, and useful concession, to which I hope the Committee will agree.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 12, at end, add, "Any moneys received by a County Council or a Town Council or Police Commissioners, under this section, and directed by Resolution to be appropriated or to be set aside for any purpose authorised by this sub-section other than the relief of the rates shall, although not expended or specifically contributed or allotted in whole or in part before the end of the financial year, remain applicable for such purposes."—(Mr. Crawford.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    DR. CLARK: This is an Amendment that I have put down in order that—
    "No portion of the sum of thirty thousand pounds in sub-section two shall be applied to any university in which provision shall not have been made for the full recognition of extramural teaching as qualifying for graduation and entitling the extra-mural teachers to representation on the examining bodies."
    When we had the Bill appointing the Universities Commission we were desirous of having a clause compelling them to recognise extra-mural teaching, but the Government persuaded us to accept as a compromise a permissive clause. Since then we have had the Ordinances, and we find that the permissive power has not been carried out. Under the old Act and the old Commission extra-mural teaching was recognised in the Medical Faculties, but by the Ordinances which will probably become law next week extra-mural teaching is only recognised in the Medical Faculties to the same extent—namely, one-half of the classes. There is no extramural teaching recognised in the Faculty of Arts or in any other Faculty, and what we ought now to do is to limit the Universities until extra-mural teaching is recognised in all subjects, and the teachers have a fair share of the representation on the Examination Board. Why should we not have extra-mural teaching in Arts? In all Scotch University towns there are good secondary schools with able masters; and if extramural

    219
    teaching in Arts were permitted, these men would qualify for the Chairs. In large towns like Edinburgh and Glasgow it is almost impossible for Professors to do their work; and if you look at the Return got on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter), you will see that in consequence of the large number of students—the salaries from fees run from £2,000 to £3,000 a year—they have got to examine 100 students at a time. In order to have classes that the Professor and his assistant can give proper attention to, it is necessary to recognise more fully than has been done in the medical profession this system of extra-mural teaching. I will give one or two practical instances in reference to this matter. Take probably the ablest man on the Commission—a nobleman that we are all very proud of—Sir William Thomson, now Lord Kelvin. He is one of the ablest scientific men in Scotland during the whole of the century, but no one who has had experience of his class would say that he is the best possible teacher. He has got talents and powers—extraordinary talents and powers of their kind—but they did not lay in the direction of teaching. And if you take other men of great powers and talents, you will find that they are not the best possible teachers. What we want to have is a fair amount of extra-academical competition with the men who get the Chairs. You have the great Glasgow Infirmary, a splendid clinical school, and St. Mungo's College, and these gentlemen are just as able to teach, and they have better facilities for clinical instruction than you have at the University, and why should they not have some chance of getting students and having their classes well filled? I do not see why there should be this limitation. The second point which I have laid down in my Amendment is that there should be representation on the examining body of these extra-mural teachers, and I should like to hear the opinion of the Government, and the course they intend taking in reference to this, not the least among the many debateable questions that have been settled by the University Ordinances.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 12, at end, add—"Provided always, that no portion of the sum of thirty thousand pounds in sub-section two shall be applied to any University in which provision shall not have been made for the full recognition of extra-mural teaching as qualifying for graduation, and entitling the extra-mural teachers to representation on the examining bodies."—(Dr. Clark.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I think the Committee will scarcely be surprised to hear that the Government cannot see their way to accept this Amendment, and I think it is only necessary that I should explain to the Committee what is the course that the hon. Member is practically pursuing to get their adhesion to the position of the Government upon this matter. The Committee are aware that several years ago the University Act was passed; and that, in order to carry out the reforms suggested by that Act, an Executive Commission of extraordinary strength was appointed. This Commission has been continuing its labours for several years, and those labours are now embodied in Ordinances which are on the Table of the House, and upon which we shall hope to have a full discussion some of these days at a period not far remote. It is surely too much to expect that the House should, upon a Debate of the kind which is possible in the present connection, put in by an alteration of this Bill a qualification which it refused to put in the Bill dealing with the whole subject. It is perfectly impossible for me to follow the interesting personal reminiscences of the hon. Member, and I must really respectfully decline to go into the very large subject of extra and intra-mural teaching. I would remind the Committee that in so far as the hon. Member puts these words on the Paper, he is forestalling the judgment of the House. When the discussion takes place upon those Ordinances, and when we come to that portion of the Estimates proposing a certain amount of money for the University, the hon. Member will have an opportunity of setting forth his views. In carrying out the compromise which has been made, I believe hon. and righ

    221
    hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that the discussion of a subject which has been brought in like this upon the consideration of this Bill ought certainly to be excluded.
    MR. WALLACE: I cannot understand the concluding remarks of the Solicitor General upon this matter. I was not aware that any contract was entered into by the Opposition that would have the effect of precluding any remarks in this connection. If there was any contract between any parties that were responsible, I, for one, have never been aware up to this moment that it embraced the exclusion of the topic which is now before the Committee. The Solicitor General's remarks upon this subject were of so nebulous and nondescript a character that I am precluded by the ordinary canons of criticisms from making any further comment upon them. All I can say in this connection is that the point he has endeavoured to turn off in this slight and flimsy way is one that ought not to have been dealt with in that style. It is one of very great importance indeed. When the Universities Act was passed—when the Solicitor General was elsewhere, and therefore not likely to have cognisance of the importance attached to it—one of the most particular points discussed was this very one of extramural teaching, and by a considerable succession of efforts those on this side of the House succeeded in having put into that Act a special and leading indication of the desire of the Legislature as to the position of extramural teaching in Scotch Universities. I do not think the Solicitor General will contradict me when I say that in that Act there was a distinct indication on the part of the Legislature that extra-mural teaching was to be made a very prominent point on the part of the Commissioners in arranging the new constitutions of the Universities. All that we ask is that Parliament should be true to its original indications. I think that in the last Universities' Act Parliament almost gave a direction—I will go further, and say Parliament altogether gave a direction—that extramural teaching should be a prominent point to be observed by those who were to carry out the directions of Parliament
    222
    in connection with the modes of instruction in the Scotch Universities. If we had not had indications that this was not to be carried out, I should have said that there would have been a justification for the attitude that the Solicitor General has taken up. But he must have been perfectly well aware that the way in which the instructions of Parliament have been carried out has not been in the spirit of those instructions, and that extra-mural teaching has been discouraged; that so far from anything in the nature of extra-mural teaching being carried out, it has only been done in name and in appearance, and everything has been done for the purpose of discouraging it in spirit and in substance. I do not think we are doing too much in declaring what we declared before, that we desire that extra-mural teaching should be encouraged in a reasonable manner; and in taking material security in this Bill that our instruction shall be carried out, I have no doubt that if the Amendment is adopted, we shall have some material guarantee that our instructions in the Universities Bill of 1889 shall be effectually carried out instead of being evaded and escaped, as we know in point of fact is the case at the present moment. The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General are perfectly well aware of the circumstances under which the order of 1889 is being evaded and escaped. I say this House would be simply performing a duty to itself in adopting its own Amendment.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: I do not think the hon. Member for Caithness deserves to be contemptuously waved aside for bringing up this question on this occasion, because we know what is the nature of the opportunity we shall have of discussing the question on Monday night. If the First Lord of the Treasury will give an assurance that he will suspend the Business at an earlier period on Monday night than usual, so that we may have a discussion of this very important question before twelve o'clock, then I think we should be quite disposed to let this matter drop now. The question is one of vital importance to the prosperity of the Universities. We have given a sum of £30,000 under this Bill to be expended in University education,

    223
    and I see no particular reason why we should not discuss it in connection with extra-mural teaching. It has been of such enormous benefit on the medical side that I cannot for the life of me see why it should not be applied in equal measure to the art side of education. I do not think my hon. Friend is quite justified in saying the Professors do not perform their work properly. I believe they do; and I do not grudge them the salaries they get. I would again ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will give us better facilities for the discussion on Monday night?
    MR. FINLAY: I think any one coming into the House during the last two minutes would suppose the subject under discussion was a Bill for the amendment of the Scotch Universities Act. I do very respectfully submit to my hon. Friend that this is hardly the occasion for raising such a Debate. I do not think a subject so very important as extra-mural and intra-mural teaching ought to be raised in this form. I presume, Mr. Courtney, the Amendment is technically in order, or you would not have allowed it. But it does appear to me to be entirely contrary to the spirit which ought to actuate hon. Members, and it is certainly not quite in conformity with the understanding arrived at the other night.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: I rise to appeal to the hon. Member for Caithness not to press his Amendment at the present time. I agree that this is not a proper occasion for the discussion of this question. It ought to be discussed really on the Ordinance framed by the Commissioners. I think the First Lord of the Treasury could now end the discussion by making this very reasonable concession as to the Ordinances.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The University Ordinances must be discussed before the 12th inst., therefore the time is greatly limited. I entirely sympathise with what has fallen from the hon. Member for Caithness; but, at the same time, the House will see that the Government cannot provide the extra time required for the purpose. I would remind the Committee that I was asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member
    224
    for Midlothian what the intentions of the Government are in regard to the conduct of business during next week, and that I stated that we proposed to take the Small Holdings Bill on Monday. If good progress is then made with that Bill, and we arrive at a suitable halting stage, no doubt the discussion might come on at 11 or soon afterwards. I cannot go farther than that.
    DR. CLARK: I think another suggestion might be made. There is only one small Motion on the Paper for tomorrow night, about Kew Gardens, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir E. Temple); perhaps the hon. Member for Aberdeen could bring on his Motion then.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: For what day is it down?
    DR. CLARK: It is put down for Monday. Can it be withdrawn and put down for Friday?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Possibly it would be in Order to put down the Motion in some other name for tomorrow night.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: My Motion deals only with a very small and specific medical point; it has nothing to do with general policy.
    DE. CLARK: The Motion of the hon. Member for Evesham could be very well taken on the Estimates. If the hon. Member took a Division tomorrow the Scotch Members could talk, but not divide. I see the hon. Member for Evesham in the Gallery. Perhaps he will settle the business now by saying a few words.
    SIR R. TEMPLE (from the Gallery): No, no!
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the difficulty could be met by setting up Supply again, if it can be done.
    DR. CLARK: We can move that the Speaker leave the Chair, if we can do nothing else.
    MR. HUNTER: It would be quite in order, I believe, for the hon. Member for Evesham to speak from the Gallery.
    SIR R. TEMPLE: No.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We could divide now, and discuss the matter to-morrow, or we could discuss it tomorrow, and divide on Monday.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 3.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, to leave out "Relief," and insert "Account." This is the last Amendment to the Bill which is on the Paper, and I hope the Government will accept it. It would alter the title to the Education and Local Account (Scotland) Bill. It will be recollected that the character of the Bill has been changed, and I submit that the alteration I propose would be a fitting one to make in it.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 14, to leave out the word "Relief," and insert the word "Account."—(Mr. Bryce.)
    Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    SIR C. J. PEARSONmoved, in page 2, after Clause 2, to insert the following clause:—
    (Allocation of Fees and Compensation to certain Teachers for loss of Fees.)
    "Notwithstanding any provisions in any statute, scheme, provisional order, deed, or instrument, it shall be lawful for the governing body or managers, whether School Board or other, of any school to which a grant is made under the provisions of Section 2, Sub-section 1, of this Act at any time, and from time to time to alter or reduce the fees exigible therein, or to regulate the disposal or application of such fees: Provided, that any teacher of a higher class public school, appointed before the passing of this Act, having a vested right to fees exigible in such school, shall be entitled to receive from the School Board, compensation in respect of any loss sustained by him under the provisions of this section, and such compensation, failing agreement, may be determined finally by the sheriff, and shall be payable out of the school fund."
    Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 332.]
    MR. MCDONALD CAMERON: Can the Government give us the names of the Departmental Committee?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The question of the names of the Departmental Committee is engaging the attention of the Government, and I hope to be able to announce them before the Report stage.

  SUPERANNUATION ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 275.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    MR. STOREY: I do not think we can make any progress with this Bill until the Government have given us some information with reference to the scope of its provisions. At the present time, as I understand it, certain classes of public servants, if removed from one service to another, can count the whole of the time in respect to superannuation. Now, I am not prepared to say that that is unreasonable or unfair. But the point upon which I want information is this: To what classes of public servants does the existing law apply? I would also like to ask to what class of servants are we to understand that the present Bill applies, and why are the Army and Navy to be exempted? I am only asking this for the sake of obtaining information on the subject. I have no desire to oppose the Bill. I wish to see certain grievances redressed. If we propose to extend to Civil Servants the same rights which others possess to superannuation, then I would submit that whether it be proper or improper in itself, it is extremely inconvenient to make such a charge on the Exchequer in such a Bill as this. I find the expression "public office" means "any office the money for which is paid out of a fund receiving a contribution from any of the public sources." That means that any county or borough fund, inasmuch as they receive a contribution out of the Imperial Funds, can, by the Treasury, be termed a public source; and thus it follows that a policeman who transfers from the north to the south

    227
    may include his former service for his pension here in London. Under the Act of 1859 he can only reckon one-half of such time. Therefore it seems to us there is a considerable chance that the House may, without knowing it, go much further in the direction of superannuation than it expects. I will put another case, which is sure to provoke some speech from the hon. Members who represent Ireland. As I read the Bill the effect will be that any person who has served Her Majesty in any part of the world will be able to go to Ireland, procure engagement as a policeman, and to count the whole of his services, in any part of the world, and in any department, for superannuation. Thus, before agreeing to the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman must not wonder if, under these conditions, we desire to know what we are doing. The information I want is this—to which class of public servants is it to relate? If he will tell us that it has got no general application, that it is merely to remedy some little grievance, I do not think there will be any objections to it. If, on the other hand, under cover of these innocent provisions, it is really an enlargement of the whole scope of our superannuation arrangements, so as to enable a large section of public servants to count time served in various parts of the world towards pension, then I submit that such a proposition should be fully explained to the Committee. In order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of explanation I move to report Progress.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It will only add to the irregularity to make that Motion. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will probably make his explanation; but it is impossible for him to make a speech on that Motion.
    *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. GORST,): I thought when this Bill was read a second time that I had made what I supposed to be a lucid explanation of its contents. I can assure hon. Members that it does not tend to greatly increase the charge upon the taxpayers. The Bill may have very little effect—probably none—in that direction. It is a Bill to
    228
    remedy certain practical difficulties which have been found in regard to the Superannuation Acts; and among those who will benefit most are some of the poorer class of Civil Servants of the Crown. As to the question who are the particular persons under the Crown who may be transferred without losing right to pension, and who are those whose right to pension is lost by transfer from one place to another—I cannot undertake to exhaust those questions without consultation with my legal adviser, and without sufficient examination of the various Acts authorising the grant of pensions. If the hon. Member will be content with a general practical answer, I may say that the Departments in which these provisions are necessary are the Prisons Department and the Constabulary Department. I think when I have mentioned those Departments—there may be others—I have practically answered the question of the hon. Member. As to the necessity for this Bill I will mention one case, actually now before the Treasury. The man was a warder in Canterbury Prison from March, 1875, to April, 1878, his salary at that time being paid out of the county rates. He then became a warder in Wandsworth Prison from 1878 to February, 1886, his salary being paid out of the Parliamentary Grants. Prom February 1886 to March 1891 he was a turnkey in the Isle of Man, his salary, of course, being paid out of the Isle of Man revenue. This man, after serving the public for many years, is now reported unfit for duty on account of ill-health, but at present the Treasury is unable by law to give him any superannuation allowance whatever. I think even the hon. Member who has just addressed the House will agree that that kind of man ought, in his declining years, and when his health has failed, to have a pension out of the revenue of the different authorities under which he has served. This Bill will enable the Treasury to make rules for giving that kind of man a pension, and to allocate the amount to be paid out of various public funds. It will apply to every part of the United Kingdom. I hope the hon. Member is now satisfied that there is no latent conspiracy. Certainly no

    229
    Member of the Government will be benefited by it, and there is no intention to greatly add to the charges on the revenue. The Bill is really one to enable the Treasury to redress certain grievances which have sprung up.
    MR. PHILIPPS: There was an idea below the Gangway that this Bill really aimed at benefiting certain high officials. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that this Bill will not benefit any Member of the Government. And I do not suppose it would, as a Member of the Government; but it certainly was thought that the Bill would benefit those who held office abroad—office under the Indian or Colonial Government—and that, while ostensibly aiming at the class of servants the right hon. Gentleman has named, it would really benefit the much wealthier class of public servants. Therefore, I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to put a clause in this Bill to render it absolutely impossible for anybody who has drawn a large salary in the Public Service to be at all benefited?
    *SIR J. GORST: I do not think it would be possible to introduce such a clause—it would be very invidious to make distinctions. The principle of the Bill will, no doubt, apply alike to officers of the upper and the lower grades; but I do not know where the hon. Member draws the line of high salary. It would affect the case of a man who has been transferred between the Home and the Indian Services, and who might put together his Indian service with service in this country, and be pensioned on retirement in respect of his whole service.
    MR. PHILIPPS: An Indian Governor?
    *SIR J. GORST: If the hon. Member asks me conundrums of that kind, I can only give him an answer proverbially worthless. If the hon. Member really wants information on the subject, and will put a question on the Paper, we shall endeavour to give him an answer.
    MR. KNOX: I think we have legitimate reason for allowing the Motion of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) to stand. We understand that by putting down a question on the Notice Paper we may discover when the
    230
    Bill has passed through the House what it is we have been engaged upon. I submit that is not a reasonable answer for a Minister in charge of a Bill to give to an hon. Member who asks a practical question as to the effect of the Bill.
    *SIR J. GORST: I have answered the hon. Member, but it is impossible for me to state all the classes the Bill would embrace. It is a question for the Attorney General. My opinion would only be the answer of a lawyer without fee.
    MR. KNOX: We expect the right hon. Gentleman not only to give the opinion of a lawyer upon the subject, but also to give us the effect of his official information as to what would be the result of this measure. There is another reason for reporting Progress. A Commission sat for some years and made an elaborate Report upon this among other subjects. On that Commission there were the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) and the hon. Member for the Stretford Division of Lancashire (Mr. Maclure). The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton has expressed his wish to be present during the consideration of this Bill, and it is unfortunate that the Bill should twice have come on when, in the ordinary course of business, it was unexpected. Inasmuch as none of the recommendations of the Commission have been literally carried out in this Bill, it is surely desirable that, when the measure comes on for discussion, there should be some Members of the Commission present who can give an opinion untrammelled by Governmental connection. I understand the Commission reported that no further grants should be given; no increase should be made in the superannuation allowances until provision had also been made for a five per cent. reduction from the salaries of officials. Until the one thing has been accomplished, I do not think we should do the other. It is, too, a strange thing that we are without any explanation as to whether the Bill affects Resident Magistrates in Ireland. We are told that this Bill chiefly concerns prison and constabulary officers. What we want to know is, does it affect the Irish Resident Magistrates?
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I should like to ask, Sir, if the hon. Member is in Order in discussing these various points?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The whole discussion is irregular, but I understand that the hon. Member intends to move to report Progress.
    MR. KNOX: Well, Sir, I will just say that I object to proceeding with the consideration of this Bill until we have some further knowledge of what it consists. Above all things we desire to know if it is intended to benefit Resident Magistrates. No distinct answer has been given to us on this and other points, and I therefore move to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Knox.)
    SIR J. GORST: I think the present is not a favourable time for discussing the question, which is that of removing a great hardship to a very deserving class of public servants. I may say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) has no desire for further alteration in this Bill beyond an Amendment which I have agreed to move at the proper time. The Committee, I hope, will now enter upon a business-like discussion of the clauses. I should be out of Order if I were now to enter into discussion on the principle of the Bill. That is not a business we should discuss this evening, and I hope the Amendment will be withdrawn. Of course, any point might be discussed on the Third Reading or on the Report.
    MR. STOREY: The right hon. Gentleman should be the last to complain, because when we were sitting here ready to take part in the Second Reading he got up and moved the Closure, and after a discussion of only 25 minutes the Bill was passed without the desired information having been obtained. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that we should go on with the clauses, and he says we can discuss the principle of the Bill on the Third Reading. He knows very well what little hope there is of getting the principle of a Bill discussed on the Third
    232
    Reading. Our only hope of getting to know what the scope of the Bill is, is in resisting Progress at the present time in a Parliamentary way.
    MR. MORTON: I rise to express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir J. Gorst) will answer the questions which have been put to him as to the scope of this Bill. If he will do so, I would recommend my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment, and allow the Committee to discuss the clauses. We had no information on Monday night that the Bill affected only the lower class of Civil Servants in the Constabulary and Prison Departments. If that is the fact, will the right hon. Gentleman consent to words being inserted in the Bill limiting its provisions to the class of officials he has mentioned, and will he consent to report Progress so that he may give us information as to the meaning of the Bill and the amount of money involved? If he will do that, I am sure it will get over the difficulty. Although I have no desire to obstruct the Bill, I say frankly that I should not mind if it were stopped altogether, because it is a bad Bill, and opposed to the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
    MR. PHILIPPS: I do not want to delay the progress of this Bill. On the other hand, if the Bill is what the right hon. Gentleman says he thinks it is, I shall be delighted to withdraw all opposition to it. We want to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman a positive statement as to the class of Civil Servants who would be benefited. That is all we want, and if we get that, I hope to be able to vote for the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman says he cannot be expected to get up in his place and give, in an extempore way, a list of the persons who will benefit. We do not ask that he should, but he can give us the information to-morrow. Before letting this Bill go through unopposed, we want to know positively what class of public persons are going to benefit by it. If it is only to benefit humble persons who have served their country well, I should like to vote for it. The information which has been asked for might be given to-morrow, and I think if that

    233
    were done it would facilitate the progress of this Bill. There is no desire on the part of some of us to oppose the Bill if we were certain that there is no more harm in it than the right hon. Gentleman would lead us to believe.
    MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I think the request made to the right hon. Gentleman to report Progress is a most reasonable one, although I do not agree with all the reasons alleged for doing so. For instance, I do not think we should report Progress simply because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Fowler) is not here. But, Mr. Courtney, there is one reason which is unanswerable, and that is that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister in charge of this Bill either cannot, or will not, explain its details. It seems to me that the question of my hon. Friend as to whether certain persons are, or are not, intended to be benefited by the Bill is a reasonable one, but the right hon. Gentleman refrains from answering it. I do not wish to speak disrespectfully of the right hon. Gentleman, but it seem to me that he has displayed considerable ignorance as to the provisions of the Bill. On the Second Reading he said categorically it would not affect the revenues of India. But I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there is a sub-section authorising a charge on the Indian Revenues.
    *SIR J. GORST: This Bill does not touch a single rupee of the revenues of India unless the Secretary of State so determines.
    MR. SAMUEL EVANS: But it does if the Secretary of State decides that it shall. However, that is not the question. I think I have shown that the right hon. Gentleman has not exhibited to the Committee such an acquaintance with the details of the Bill as we ought to expect. I have listened to the discussion throughout, and I must say I have not heard any satisfactory statement from him as to whom this Bill is to apply to. I, therefore, think we should support the Motion to report Progress, so as to enable the right hon. Gentleman to furnish the information asked for.
    (9.0.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    DR. TANNER: I had the opportunity of hearing the remarks of the Secretary to the Treasury; and considering the strong action taken in connection with the Second Reading of the Bill, and the unsatisfactory answers the right hon. Gentleman has given on the subject during the Session, it is strange that he should have offered such an explanation of the Bill as he has given to-night. We want to get something explicit from the responsible Ministers of the Crown with regard to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that this Bill may or may not affect the taxpayer. Our duty is to protect the taxpayer, and we ought to have some idea of how much will be spent under the Bill. Then the right hon. Gentleman said it would benefit the constabulary and prison servants. I know how it will affect them. There are many men of the Royal Irish Constabulary who made themselves obnoxious in Ireland—at Mitchelstown—and who were removed and put as warders in prisons in order that they may get an increased payment. I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether this Bill will apply to such men as Cavanagh and Captain Segrave, and men of that ilk, or will it simply meet such cases as those mentioned by the Secretary to the Treasury, where a man has been removed from a post in one prison to a post in another? If it is intended to benefit the poor officials in gaols and the constabulary only, I withdraw all opposition; but if it will give certain Resident Magistrates in Ireland power to count service in India as well as in Ireland, or if—on the coming of Home Rule—they are removed to India, to count also the service in Ireland, it would be ridiculous. It will facilitate the passage of the Bill if the First Lord of the Treasury will say plainly and straightforwardly whether or not the Bill is intended only to benefit the class of persons mentioned by the Secretary to the Treasury? If it is to confer large salaries on men who have done very little to deserve them, I shall take every step I can to arrive at the real

    235
    truth; and I think it will save the time of the House, and you trouble, Mr. Courtney, if the right hon. Gentleman will tell us at once if these gentlemen are to be superannuated.
    MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I will not again allude to the fact that the Secretary to the Treasury succeeded in curtailing the Second Reading stage of this Bill to a great extent by the Closure; but I desire to express the opinion that, though I think he would be the last person in any way to endeavour to deceive the Committee, he approached this Bill not only on the Second Reading stage, but to-day, in a perfunctory manner, and that, from many things which dropped from the right hon. Gentleman, he did not grasp the magnitude of the task he has taken in hand. He plainly told this Committee to-night that he did not know the financial effect of this Bill, with regard to the amounts, less or more, which would be demanded either from the taxpayers of this country, or the over-taxed people of India, in support of the operations of the Bill. Now, it appears to me that there is nothing more absolutely important than that this House should, especially in Committee on Bills which involve the passing of large sums of money, convince Her Majesty's Government that they are determined that the Government shall at all events take the trouble to make a fair estimate of some sort as to the financial outcome of a Bill before they bring it to the Committee stage.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Bill is now in the Committee stage, and the hon. Member is making observations on the Second Reading.
    *MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I am only endeavouring to reply to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. He stated from that Bench that he did not know; that he only believed and thought—
    THE CHAIRMAN: That was an irregular discussion which was permitted as a matter of favour. It was quite out of Order, and to continue that discussion on a Motion to report Progress would be out of order.
    *MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman in his irregular discussion.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    *MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: But I will say this—the whole method in which he has approached this Bill shows that he has not studied it or even read it. He told us—I suppose you will not allow me to dilate upon this point, but you will allow me to mention it—he told us to-day that in his opinion it would not affect the Revenue of India at all. I shall be prepared to prove upon Amendments which I have down on the Paper that the Revenue of India will positively and must necessarily be affected thereby. I do not believe that Her Majesty's Government have taken the trouble to look into the magnitude of the amounts at stake in this matter; but I may say that about five and a half millions of money per year are affected, or may be affected, by the operations of this Bill; and I want to ask the Government if they themselves can allege that they have already either taken the House sufficiently into their confidence upon the Second Reading, or that they have taken the Committee sufficiently into their confidence on the present occasion to enable the Motion for reporting Progress to be withdrawn?
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I think an apology is due from me to the Secretary to the Treasury that I was not here earlier. But I did not think that the Bill would have been brought on at this time. I was not aware that such rapid progress had been made with the Scotch Bill. With reference to this Bill, I am not going to discuss it as if it were in the Second Reading stage, but I very much regret that I had not an opportunity of discussing it on the Second Reading stage. I may state in one sentence the attitude which I feel towards this Bill. I was associated with the Royal Commission on the Civil Service for many years, and we went very fully into this question of superannuations, and we presented a Report relating to the subject quite as thick as the book in my hand. For several years I have been pressing the Government to take some action upon our recommendations. I do not attribute any blame to the Government. Perhaps the course they have taken may be owing to the exigencies of business,

    237
    but they have brought in no Bill dealing with the whole scheme dealt with by the Royal Commission. My objection to this Bill is that it is merely a sectional Bill dealing with a very grave question. I have not heard what the Secretary to the Treasury said, but he certainly met me very frankly and fairly on more than one point which I shall mention when the time comes. I do not know what specific reasons he has for bringing on this Bill. They may be very good reasons; I do not say they are not, because I know nothing at all about them. But my objection to this Bill is that it is dealing in a very minute manner with a very great question. It is too late now for me to raise that question. The Second Reading stage was the proper time for raising that question. I was prepared to call attention to the enormous amount of money—two millions per annum—now paid for Civil Service pensions, in addition to what we are paying for the Army and Navy. However, that is no reason why we should not get into Committee on the Bill, and let the subject proceed; and I would ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion.
    MR. KNOX: I can only express my regret that I cannot accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman and take the course which he has recommended. If any of our Amendments had been accepted by the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of the Bill, if he had given us any quid fro quo, we might, perhaps, be in a more accommodating frame of mind. But not only has he not accepted any of our Amendments, but he has carefully abstained from explaining the nature of the provisions of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not really know what was the object of bringing in this sectional Bill. I still suspect that the real object of this Bill is to give some extra advantage to certain gentlemen now serving as Resident Magistrates in Ireland. The Government have carefully abstained from giving a plain answer to a straight question—whether or not this Bill affects certain gentlemen now serving in Ireland as Resident Magistrates? I hope the Resident Magistrates
    238
    and Divisional Commissioners will get no assistance from this House, and that we shall proceed no further with this Bill, about which we still know nothing. It may be that this is an innocent Bill; but if it is an innocent Bill it ought to be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to have either presented a Paper showing in black and white how many Civil servants would be affected by it, or to have given a definite answer upon the subject. The only explanation which we have of the proposals of this Bill is the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that so far as he knows there will be no charge thrown on the revenue by this Bill. Now if that is the case, what is the use of the Bill at all? In pressing this Motion I wish to make it clear that I do not act from any wish to obstruct legitimate business; and it would be very much better that we should proceed with the Bills that relate to the poor law schools in Ireland, or some other simple Bills which we can understand, and leave this Bill which nobody seems to understand for investigation on some subsequent occasion.
    MR. STOREY: From what I had been told by the Secretary to the Treasury I was under the impression that this Bill was an innocent Bill, and that it did not involve any additional large amount of money to be charged against the English Exchequer. Since I went out of this room I have got information which makes me gravely doubt whether or not I was not too simple in accepting that view of the situation, and whether, on the contrary, this is not a Bill which may cause a very serious charge upon the Exchequer. I must say I freely endorse the opinions which have been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman on our Front Bench, who has been at the Treasury too, and I hope he will support me when I say that in his time no Bill was carried through which involved an additional charge on the Treasury without the Minister furnishing to the House something like an authoritative statement as to what the amount of that charge would be. I now ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Is there going to be an extra charge by this Bill, and, if so, what is the amount of

    239
    that charge; and is it not his bounden duty to communicate that information to the House before we proceed further with this Bill? I will give an illustration. By the rule contemplated by this Bill an Indian Uncovenanted Civil servant, on leaving India and taking up an English appointment afterwards, say at fifty years of age at a salary of £1,500 per annum, and holding that appointment for five years, would he or would he not be entitled to count for pension, not simply on the Indian scale, but on the English scale, because the Bill says in the second sub-section that he shall be entitled to his pension as if his whole service had been in the public office from which he ultimately retires? On the Indian Service scale he would be entitled to a pension of £475 a year; but on the English scale he would be entitled to £1,000 a year. I want to know from the Government whether that is the case or not; because if it is, it seems to me that this is a distinct attempt, without giving the House full information, very largely to increase the already bloated amount we expend on pensions to Civil Servants. If that be correct—and I must say I have reason to know that it is correct—I would submit that this multiplied by the number of persons involved constitutes a great additional charge upon the Exchequer here and in India. India, however, is in this condition that she cannot be charged, and, therefore, I am mainly concerned with this country. I venture to impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer this fact, that we have a right to know what this additional charge will probably be. Our fear is that under cover of this new proposal there is going to be a great extension of the system of pensions; and as guardians of the public purse we have a right to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer has he gone into the matter? Is the amount large or small? If it is small, let him tell us the amount; and if it is small we shall be delivered from further discussion.
    MR. DALZIEL: There is no one who has listened to this discussion but would arrive at the conclusion that a case has been
    240
    irresistibly made out for the Motion which was originally made in order that the House might be given further information regarding the real meaning of this Bill. The question was whether or not this Bill would apply to the highly-salaried servants of India and in our Colonies on returning to this country and continuing in the Public Service. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury made the extraordinary admission that he could not give us any information on that point, and said that if we wanted any particulars, we ought to address a question to him later on. I do not think that that is exactly the position which anyone in charge of a Bill of such great importance should take up. Either the right hon. Gentleman understands the Bill or he does not. If he does, he ought to answer the question. If the Bill does not apply to highly-salaried officials, no further opposition will be made to the Bill, but it will be allowed to pass at once. I, therefore, hope we shall now have a declaration on behalf of the Government as to what is the real meaning of the Bill.
    MR. MORTON: I hope that when the Financial Secretary comes back from his dinner he will be able to give us some information on the two questions which I put to him—namely, whether, in the first place, he would not consent to report Progress, so that he could give us information as to the meaning of the Bill and the amount of money involved; and, in the second place, whether, if, as he stated, the Bill only applies to constabulary and prison officials, he would consent to words being introduced limiting the operation of the Bill to those two classes? I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will condescend to answer these questions. If the Bill applies only to servants with small salaries, I shall willingly see it pass, because, until we do away with pensions altogether, the working men and small-salaried officials should be pensioned as well as the more highly paid officials.
    *SIR J. GORST: I am very reluctant to make another speech on this question,

    241
    especially as it seems that all I say is twisted by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite. ("No!") I never said, as the hon. Member for Peterborough stated, that the Bill would only apply to prison officials and constabulary officers.
    *MR. MORTON: You mentioned only their cases.
    SIR J. GORST: I am very sorry that I failed to make myself intelligible to the hon. Member. What I did say was that the officers who lost their rights of pension by transference from one office to another were principally constabulary and prison officers; that they, therefore, were the officers who will benefit chiefly—I guarded myself by saying "chiefly"—from the provisions of the Bill. With regard to the question which the hon. Member has asked as to the number of persons who will be benefited by this Bill, it would not be possible to state categorically the number, for that remains to futurity. In fact, next year officers may be transferred from the constabulary to the prison service, and from the prison service to some other service. I really do not think I deserve the censure so freely passed upon me by hon. Members opposite, that I have been concealing some great conspiracy under this very simple Bill.
    MR. STOREY: NO; you said you did not know.
    *SIR J. GORST: What I did say was that the Bill had been brought in in consequence of the practical difficulties experienced in awarding pensions, and I gave the Committee a concrete instance of those difficulties. The number of persons will certainly be small. The charge upon the Public Revenue, if there be any charge, will certainly be insignificant.
    MR. STOREY: Have you calculated it?
    *SIR J. GORST: No; because a calculation is impossible.
    MR. STOREY: Then, an estimate?
    *SIR J. GORST: It is impossible to make either a calculation or an estimate. Hon. Members may take my declaration as an officer of the Government that the charge will be infinitesimal, that it will not be a great one, and that it will not figure in the Chancellor
    242
    of the Exchequer's Budget, or as an important item in the Expenditure of this or any other year. I am very sorry for the way in which this Bill has been received, because it affects the interests of many of the poorer servants of the Crown; and the idea of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite that the Bill is proposed in the interest of highly-paid and highly-salaried public servants is a pure imagination, and has no foundation in reality. If the Committee would consent to go on with the Bill and consider the clauses, we should, I believe, soon arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.
    DR. TANNER: Will it affect the Irish Resident Magistrates?
    *SIR J. GORST: Certainly.
    DR. TANNER: Ah! That is it.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I have not intervened in this Debate before, and I should be very sorry to impute to the right hon. Gentleman any underhand motives. I think he has given us a clear statement, and I am perfectly willing myself to accept his declaration as an officer of the Government. But in matters of this kind I think we are entitled—I cannot say to doubt the word of a Minister, but, having regard to the natural jealousy with which Members of the House of Commons are bound to look upon suggested legislation respecting pensions and superannuations, to ask that everything connected with the proposal shall be placed in the clearest form before the House and the country. We should have not merely the declaration of a Minister of the Crown on that side of the House; but we should have embodied in the Bill all the material necessary for enabling us to form our own judgment as to whether the proposed legislation is useful or not. I want to put this point before the right hon. Gentleman, and I think he will see that it is a reasonable suggestion. He will observe that the Bill in its title, and also in other parts, refers to a series of Acts extending from the years 1834 to 1887. I have taken the trouble to count up in the archives of the Legislature the number of those Acts, and I find there are no less than

    243
    21 Superannuation Acts which have been passed during the years I have named. Those Acts apply to all classes of military and civil servants employed in the service of this country. The right hon. Gentleman has just said, in answer to a friend of mine on this side of the House, that there are two classes, principally, of servants of the country who will be affected by this Bill—prison officials and constabulary officers—but he did not, as I understood him, exclude in his remarks the possibility of this Bill, when it passes into law, applying also to other classes and categories of public servants. If I have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, I desire an explicit statement from him as to whether we are to understand that he does exclude from the operation of this Bill all other classes except those I have named.
    SIR J. GORST: No.
    MR. CONYBEARE: The right hon. Gentleman says "No." We have a right to look at it from this point of view—that it does affect the different classes of public servants who are dealt with by these 21 Acts passed between 1834 and 1887. Everybody knows perfectly well the difficulty of wading through a long series of Acts of Parliament, piecing them together, seeing how they work one with another, and what the effect of any proposed legislation is as regards all these previous Acts. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, as he has not given us any Memorandum to this Bill explicitly stating what the effect of this proposal will be, whether he would not consent to give us a Schedule enumerating all these different Acts, and stating in what particular this new proposal will affect the different classes dealt with by those Acts, so that we may have clearly before us the exact relations of this new proposal to all these previous Acts? I understand we are now discussing a Motion that you do report Progress; and I think the suggestion I have made, and the argument I have used, is weighty in this behalf, as showing the desirability of reporting Progress now, in order that the right hon. Gentleman, before we resume the Debate, may give us the
    244
    further information which will enable us to deal fairly and justly with this Bill. I am quite sure that there is no desire on the part of Members on this side of the House to deal unfairly or unjustly with this proposal, more especially as the right hon. Gentleman tells us it is mainly intended to affect and improve the position of a class of public servants who, I am perfectly certain and know, are highly deserving of our most favourable consideration. But we have a right to know what other classes are likely to be benefited besides those mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman; and considering the mass of material contained in those 21 Acts of Parliament, we ought to know where we are and what will be the effect of this proposal as regards the provisions of all those other Acts. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Leader of the House whether it is not perfectly reasonable to accept now the Motion to report Progress, in order that we may resume our consideration of the Bill with the additional information which I am certain we are entitled to?
    SIR W. PLOWDEN: I would press upon the Government the real necessity of acceding to the wishes of my hon. Friends who are pressing them in this manner. The fact is we have already devoted two hours to the discussion of the Motion for reporting Progress, and we are not making any advance in the Business of the House, and I do not think we shall make any advance. I think the claim made upon the Government is very reasonable. I voted for the Closure and for the Second Reading of the Bill, and I have not the least desire to stand in its way; but it is quite clear there is a doubt on this side of the House—which may be founded rightly or wrongly—as to the scope of the measure, and we do deserve from the Government Benches a full account of that scope. If in another few days the responsible Minister will give us a Memorandum or make a statement which would show exactly what are the real facts so far as this Bill is concerned—how far it will go—then all opposition will cease.
    SIR J. GORST: May I say one word more? My only objection to report Progress now is that if Progress were reported further procedure with this Bill would be endangered. I am most anxious, for the sake of the classes whom I have indicated, that this Bill should become law. Hon. Members accept the principle of the Bill. It is contained in the first clause, and is simply that a man who has served the State in one particular Department shall not forfeit all right to a pension which may have accrued to him by his service in that Department by reason of his being transferred in the interest of the public from one Department to another. Do hon. Members below the Gangway who are jealous of the rights of the taxpayers of this country say that, if a public servant is transferred from one Department to another, he ought to forfeit his pension by reason of that transfer? That principle will chiefly be operative in the case of prison officials. I will not commit myself to saying that it may not be operative in the case of other public servants; but, if so, it is right that it should be.
    MR. STOREY: Will it double their superannuation?
    *SIR J. GORST: It will not double the superannuation of anybody.
    MR. STOREY: Will it increase their superannuation?
    *SIR J. GORST: It will increase it, for, at the present moment, they are not entitled to any superannuation at all. I understand that exception is taken to the Bill on account of the clause which says that their superannuation shall be determined by the last office from which they retire. All I can say is, that that is the principle of superannuation now, and is not a novel principle inserted in this Bill. When an officer who has been transferred from Department to Department and from post to post finally retires from the Public Service, his superannuation is calculated upon the last office which he has held. That is the present principle, and I do not think hon. Gentlemen have a right to ask me in this Bill to introduce a novel principle in the superannuation of public servants. If it is to be introduced, it should be done
    246
    in a general Act, amending the plan of superannuation in this country. It ought not to be introduced as regards only the officers affected by this Bill. Why are they to be made the subjects of a novel principle which is not to be applied to the others? All that this Bill lays down is that persons transferred from certain excepted Departments to other Departments should not be in a worse position than other servants of the State. I do not see any reason why such an exception should exist.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: It seems to me that the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was absolutely contrary to the first part. The rule upon which pensions are granted is that if a man has given his whole time to the service of the State it would reckon for his pension, so that when a man is transferred from the Customs or the Excise to another Department there is no grievance. But in the latter part of his speech the right hon. Gentleman asked whether it was fair that men who had served in certain excepted portions of the Service should lose their time of service when transferred. I quite agree that there is a hardship in the case of prison servants who have not, strictly speaking, been in the Public Service. But that is not the only case which this Bill meets. It meets that case and a great many more. The right hon. Gentleman said that Resident Magistrates would come under the rule. For my own part, I deny that there is any class of public servants in regard to which the most improper rule as to professional qualifications has been more lavishly put in force than in the case of these gentlemen. I understood from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the present Government have abolished the plan of a qualifying number of years. If this Bill is intended to cover this class, I think that the hon. Member for Sunderland is quite right in his action. If it is confined to the constabulary and prison officials, I have nothing to say, except to ask that the Rules should be laid on the Table of the House, and that the House should have a veto. But if this Bill is to be

    247
    a reconstruction of the Pension Rules, then I contend that the right hon. Gentleman has no right to deal with such a question piecemeal. I will ask the Government, considering the feeling of the Committee and their desire for further knowledge, to re-consider this Bill and re-introduce it in a shape which would allow hon. Members to give it every assistance, which would be done if it dealt with prison and constabulary officials and minor public servants who have been at a disadvantage without dealing with the whole Indian Service.
    MR. CRAIG: We have not had one word of reply from the Government in regard to the Indian question. The practical effect of this Bill will be that a man who has left one branch of the Service and is entitled to a pension of £475 would, by his subsequent service, find himself entitled to a pension of £1,000, and that chiefly in respect of his earlier service; and this is an illustration with which the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt. The right hon. Gentleman cannot expect us to answer conundrums, especially legal conundrums. I am not putting this case as a conundrum—it is a concrete case. A man who has been in the Indian Service at a high salary entitling him to a low pension will, under this Bill, practically have his pension doubled.
    *SIR J. GORST: The case which has been put could not happen under this Bill. It has been said that a retired Indian Civil servant would have an increase made in the pension payable to him out of the Revenues of India.
    MR. CRAIG: I did not say that.
    *SIR J. GORST: The Indian Civil servant would not be entitled to have his Indian pension increased out of the Revenues of either India or England. There is a proviso that the Secretary of State in Council shall determine the amount to be paid from the Revenues of India, and we have no power to increase a pension regulated by the India Acts.
    MR. ROBY: I cannot quite reconcile the statements just made by the right hon. Gentleman with the terms of the
    248
    Bill, which are that the superannuation is be the same as if the whole service had been in the office last held. Consequently, if the Indian Service entitle a man to a pension of £375 and the Home Service scale to £1,000 for the whole period of service, the difference would have been made up out of the English Exchequer. We do not want to know more than the class for which this Bill is required. If the right hon. Gentleman can point out to us that this class, in comparison with the whole, is insignificant, I think the opposition will soon cease, and that we shall join with him in removing any chance of injustice.
    MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I think the House will see that the right hon. Gentleman has, by his explanation of the purposes of this Bill, added another reason why we should report Progress. It is absolutely clear that under subsection 1 of Section 1 the pension to which a man is to be entitled after ten years' service is to be a calculation upon the pension which he would be entitled to if the whole of his service had been rendered in the office he held at the time of receiving the pension. The right hon. Gentleman says "No," but if the English language means what we understand it to mean, he really has not mastered the 1st Subsection of the Bill. Moreover, if that is so, we are going directly in the teeth of the Commissioners. They reported that in cases of this kind the pension should be granted upon the average salary which had been received by the public servant during the last ten years of his service. I really think abundant reasons have been given why you should leave the Chair, and why the Government should be allowed further time in order to master the details of the Bill.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The Secretary to the Treasury demurs to the proposal to report Progress as a new principle. It seems to me we are, however, proceeding upon a very new principle when in the Committee stage of a Bill, which was passed through its Second Reading stage by means of the Closure after half-an-hour's Debate, we find that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is obviously unacquainted with its

    249
    provisions, its scope, and its effect. He told the Committee frankly that he was unable to say what would be the additional charge upon the taxpayer. I should have thought that the fact that the Bill will throw an additional tax on the ratepayer was reason for not starting the Bill in the Committee stage of the House. I desire to point out that in the title of this Bill we are informed that certain Departments are to be dealt with which are not included in the Superannuation Act. There are several of such Departments in this country and abroad, notably in India. The servants in these Departments are receiving high salaries, purposely so fixed in order to cover superannuation. If they are to be included it means that you embrace those who have already been receiving the equivalent of superannuation. The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with that point. In distinction to the title of the Bill, the last words of 2nd section of the 1st clause says—
    "The officer in question is to be treated as if the whole of his service had been in the public office from which he ultimately retires."
    SIR J. GORST: That is not so. The expression "public office" means an office the service of which qualifies for grant of superannuation allowance.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Resident Magistrates in Ireland come in. At every turn we are confronted with new difficulties and new contradictions. All we ask is that the the Government should be allowed time to inform themselves as to the effect of the provisions of their own Bill.
    MR. PHILIPPS: The Committee has to-night constituted itself into a sort of mutual information bureau, but instead of receiving, we have been giving more than has been accorded us. The information we have received from the Government is that the Resident Magistrates in Ireland come under the scope of this Bill, and apparently that is the only fact the right hon. Gentleman has not himself contradicted later. In return we have given him three pieces of information. We have told him that by his Bill the Army and Navy were excluded. He denied it,
    250
    and we proved it to him by his own Bill. Then we told him that certain people who had served in India were included. He denied it, and we proved it. Lastly, we told him, and proved the statement by the Bill, that the pensions under this Bill were to be based upon the last office that the office-holder enjoyed. In return he has only given us the fact that the Irish Resident Magistrates are included. Thus the mutual instruction bureau has been conducted under unequal conditions. I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us what additional charge this Bill would throw upon the taxpayer, and I should also like some gentleman connected with the Government of India to tell us what Indian officers will be benefited by this Bill. For my part, I do not believe that any Government, much less the present one, would spend an evening in an effort to benefit possibly half-a-dozen Custom or Excise officers. Has the Government any friends or relatives to benefit by this Bill? Let the right hon. Gentleman out with it and make a clean breast of the matter; let the Government delay the Bill and give the Committee a schedule of the persons whom the Bill would benefit. Present opposition will only be met by such a course. If that is not done, most people will believe the Bill is a job, and is not intended to benefit the Excise officers of whom the right hon. Gentleman has spoken of so pathetically and innocently.
    *SIR J. GORST: Without one tittle of evidence the hon. Member for Mid Lanark has accused Her Majesty's Government of dishonesty or some ulterior motive in bringing forward this Bill.
    MR. PHILIPPS: Not dishonesty.
    *SIR J. GORST: The hon. Member says, "Out with it." I have already stated more than once an instance of the way in which the Bill will operate. A warder who started in Canterbury Prison under the Prison Authority of the County of Kent served in that capacity from March, 1875, to April, 1878, having his salary, paid during that time out of the Kent County rates. He was then transferred as a warder to Wandsworth Prison, where

    251
    he served from April, 1878, to February, 1886, his salary being then paid out of a Parliamentary grant. From Wandsworth Prison he was transferred to the Isle of Man, where he served from February, 1886, to March, 1891, his salary during that time being paid from the revenues of the Isle of Man. That man is not a member of the Government, nor a rich and wealthy scion of the aristocracy, but he has served the country well from 1875 to 1891. He is now in ill-health, and cannot continue his employment, and I say that that man is entitled to a pension or some retiring allowance. According to the existing law, through some mistake or misapprehension apparently, on the part of the Legislature, the man, by reason of the peculiar circumstances of his case, was not entitled to a sixpence on retiring from work, and the Treasury are unable to award him anything whatever. But I bring a Bill before the House of Commons which will enable the Treasury to award that man a pension; and how is it received by hon. Members who arrogate to themselves the title of Liberals? For nearly three hours it has been opposed by all sorts of objections. They have endeavoured to obstruct it, and so prevent this poor man from obtaining the pension he so justly deserves. Mr. Courtney, this is the man for whom I want a pension.
    MR. CALDWELL: There is no dispute on this side of the House in regard to the merits of the case which the right hon. Gentleman has brought before the Committee, but it is ridiculous to cite that case as the only one which the Bill is intended to benefit. What this side of the House wishes to know is: What are the other cases? I believe this is a subterfuge, under cover of which it is intended that others than the prison officials mentioned should derive benefit from the Bill. If the Government will restrict the Bill to that class of cases of which the right hon. Gentleman has given an example, it will be passed at once. But if the Bill is meant to apply to other cases, tell us what those other cases are, and, if you do not know, report
    252
    Progress and ascertain. Now, I will give hon. Members an instance of the extent of the ignorance—or, perhaps, an attempt to mislead—of the right hon. Gentleman. It was pointed out on this side of the House that the retiring allowance would be in accordance with the salary received by a person at the time of his retirement. The Secretary to the Treasury said, "Nothing of the kind." But the Bill says the retiring allowance is to be according to the salary received in the office from which a man retires. I think we are entitled to know whether the right hon, Gentleman's view of the words relating to this question is correct. The right hon. Gentleman obviously does not understand the Bill of which he has charge, and I think we should report Progress in order that the Secretary to the Treasury, or some other Member of the Government should inform himself of the scope of the Bill and tell us plainly what it is.
    MR. SEXTON: Perhaps the colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman, especially the First Lord, who has lately become sensible of the responsibilities of office, will be of opinion that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Gorst) is one that is not likely to tend to the despatch of business in this House, or to smooth the passage of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has lost the imperturbability, the logical powers, which distinguished him at the India Office, and won for him the admiration of everybody except his own superiors. The animated speech of the right hon. Gentleman exhibited the maximum of bad temper and then sank to the low water mark of argumentative power. An attempt has been made to justify this Bill by reference to one pathetic case. But, Sir, what relation is there between the case of this humble prison warder and a Bill which traverses the whole round of the British Empire? I say it is the duty of Government in submitting Bills of this description which involve fresh burdens on the Public Purse, to submit them in a plain form, so that we who

    253
    have to vote away the money may know to what liability we consent. But this Bill is not frank and straightforward. It is a Bill which proposes to filch money from the Public Purse by stealth. I have no objection to a Bill in which the case of the Kent warder or the case of any other deserving public servant is dealt with, if its objects are frankly and plainly stated, but I do object to a Bill which only exposes to this House a small part of its meaning, and which may be used by-and-by to give exaggerated pensions to persons whose claims this House would not be willing to recognise. Why, Mr. Courtney, the mere fact which has been extracted, that this Bill applies to Resident Magistrates in Ireland, stamps it at once as a Bill of extremely contentious character. We are on the eve of an appeal to the people on the subject of Government in Ireland. We hope soon to decrease the number of these Resident Magistrates, and reduce their salaries, and I ask, Is it tolerable that we should pass a Bill which will entitle the Government to retire these persons upon excessive and inequitable pensions, just at a moment when we might be able to dispose of them on terms more equitable to the people? Under this Bill Colonel Caddell could be dealt with. That person was a Resident Magistrate who distinguished himself by trampling on public rights and by reckless violence in Ireland. For that service against the people he was promoted to an office giving him £800 a year. One effect of this Bill, if passed, would be that the pension of that gentleman, instead of being calculated on his salary as Resident Magistrate, would be calculated on the £800 a year. Why, Sir, I stigmatise such a transaction as that as a fraud. For my own part, I am disposed to regard with the most jealous scrutiny the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. He is liberal enough with the Consolidated Fund or any other fund for Resident Magistrates and persons of that class.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is now discussing the principle of the Bill.
    MR. SEXTON: Well, Sir, I gladly leave it. It is a principle that hardly bears discussion. I quite agree with you that the less we say about it the better. But I would suggest, before we proceed further with the Bill, that the right hon. Gentleman, with a view of informing himself, as well as informing the House, as to the scope of the Bill, should see that a Memorandum is affixed to the Bill stating to what class of public officials it would refer, what increase it would make in their pensions, and what burden would be involved on the Public Purse.
    MR. WEBB: If this Bill referred only to cases of gentlemen who in the service of the country have gradually risen from one branch to another, whether in the Isle of Man, in England, or Ireland, we should be glad to facilitate its passing. But we find that the Bill does not only deal with cases of that kind, but under its provisions a man may be moved about from one branch to another, merely in order to increase his pension.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That is not pertinent to the Question before the House, which is to report Progress.
    *MR. WEBB: I bow, Sir, to your decision, but I think enough has been revealed in the course of this discussion to show, not only that the country should have a little time to discuss this Bill, but also that the Government should have a little time to study it in order that they may properly understand it. I think the Debate ought to be put off for a few days, so that the country, through the newspapers, may be informed of the character of the measure.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I will appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the interests of Public Business, he will not now accede to this Motion? It must be apparent to him that it would be impossible to get through this Bill to-night. There is a very wide field now open, which the House will, without doubt, explore, and I think it would very much promote both the carrying on of the business of the House, and the ultimate

    255
    passing of this Bill, if the First Lord of the Treasury would now allow this Motion to pass, and undertake that a Memorandum shall be placed on the Paper stating what the effect of this Bill is really intended to be. And I repeat the offer that I made an hour and a half ago, that if the Bill is confined to those persons whom the Secretary to the Treasury has described, we will offer every facility for the passing of the Bill. But if, on the other hand, it is found to re-open the whole question of superannuation, or in any way to traverse the recommendations of the Committee on this subject, we shall be obliged to offer to it a most uncompromising opposition.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With respect to the appeal made to me by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. H. Fowler), I do not pretend to believe that the present humour of the House is such as to encourage the hope of speedy progress with legislation; but I do not think that in itself is a sufficient reason for adjourning the discussion, which I may mention has now been going on for nearly three hours. The right hon. Gentleman says, and says I think truly, that if this Bill is to traverse the recommendations of the Commission of which he was so important a Member, we ought not to press it on the House. But it is a Bill, as the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir J. Gorst) has more than once told the House, small in its scope, small in the number of persons it directly affects, and small in the amount of financial burden which it can by any possibility throw upon the Public Purse. What it really does is to deal with two or three exceptional classes of pensions which have not been brought as yet into line with the general pension scheme. Under existing arrangements a public officer who might be eminently suited for some post in another branch of the Civil Service in which pensions were given under a different scheme is put in this dilemma—either he must refuse the new post, because he would lose pension thereby, or he must take the new post at a great sacrifice of pension. That limits the choice of the Government, which is a misfortune, and it
    256
    inflicts hardship on individuals, which is also a misfortune. That is a state of things which we ask the House to remedy. The Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) brought before the Committee the case of some imaginary Civil servant in India who is to be brought home after serving a long time in India and placed in a position of considerable emolument in the English Civil Service. Under certain circumstances, that man might receive a greater pension than he would probably be considered to be entitled to; but, of course, he would not receive a pension in the new place in respect of the service of his old place if his old place had no pension. But we can easily set to work to imagine cases in which people are suddenly advanced from low to very high salaries, and in which the amount of their pension seems excessive in comparison with the general average of their pay over the whole period of their service. I quite grant that that is the case, but that is not a peculiarity of the Bill. It is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, an established principle of the British Civil Service, and one which, on the whole, I do not think it would be wise for us to alter. It may occasionally produce abnormal pensions, but such cases are rare, and if they take place at all they can only take place in cases of exceptional merit, and in those cases I think the House would not grudge the larger pension which promotion gave to the official of merit. Further, that larger pension would not be given under this Bill, but under the general pension scheme of the country. I have been asked to say in the Memorandum which has been spoken of whether this Bill applies to Resident Magistrates. Certainly it does, just the same as it applies to every other Civil servant—just so much and no more—and I do not think hon. Gentlemen would desire to exclude them from their just rights in the way of pension, which are considered just with respect to the rest of the Civil Service of which the Resident Magistrates are an integral part. It would be in the highest degree impossible to say to any branch of the Civil Service, "You, and you only shall not be affected by the Bill." But the

    257
    fact that Resident Magistrates are covered by this Bill when they are transferred to other offices is not, so far as I can see, any reason why this Bill should not pass, and I would point out that the only way in which Resident Magistrates can be affected by this Bill is when they are transferred to some other place which at present has not a similar pension scheme, or is not in line with the general pension scheme of the country. I do not know who contemplates the promotion of Resident Magistrates, and I maintain that this is not a sufficient reason for stopping the discussion of this Bill, which is intended to remedy a great, though not a very wide-spread, injustice, and to enable the Government to have a fair field of selection in the transfer of Civil Servants who have deserved promotion by the services they have rendered. There is no desire on the part of the Government to traverse the Report of the Commission to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded, and I earnestly press upon the House not to go further with this Motion, but to proceed to the discussion of the Bill.
    MR. MORTON: Several appeals have been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give us information as to the estimated charge this Bill will make upon the taxpayers of the country. He has not answered that appeal; but I hope he will do so, because we have a right to insist on having that information. I would also make an appeal to the Leader of the House. He said just now that if this Bill was in any way affected by the recommendations of the Royal Commission of which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Fowler) was a Member, it ought not to pass. I say undoubtedly it is largely affected by that Report. One of the recommendations of that Commission is that from all future pensions there shall be a deduction of five per cent. towards a Pension Fund. There is no such proposal in the Bill, and there are other recommendations of that Commission which receive no attention in this measure. Under all the circumstances, I think the right hon. Gentleman would save time if he allowed us to report Progress with a view to the preparation
    258
    of the Memorandum which has been asked for. But if the Government will not consent to that, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the guardian of the Public Purse, will tell us now what is the estimated charge that this Bill, if it is passed, will make upon the funds.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: We must all acknowledge, I am sure, the difference in manner and tone between the First Lord of the Treasury and the Secretary of the same Department. If the First Lord of the Treasury desires to facilitate the progress of this measure, he would do well first to curb the temper of the Secretary to the Treasury. I certainly hardly remember during the few years I have had a seat in this House such an exhibition as we have had from the Secretary to the Treasury. The First Lord of the Treasury has to a certain extent minimised the operation of the Bill; but the divergence between his language and that of the Secretary to the Treasury adds great force to the demand from this side that the Government itself should have further time to inform itself about the Bill. Members of such great Parliamentary experience as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) and the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) have made the reasonable demand that we should have in black and white a Memorandum as to the scope and effect of the Bill, and the financial burden it will lay on the taxpayers. Surely that is a demand the Government cannot for a moment deny. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, in the interests of the great office he holds, have had some idea conveyed to him as to the financial scope of the Bill; and if that be so, why should he not communicate it to the House? The mere fact—admitted under pressure — that Irish Resident Magistrates will have a right to come under the Bill, lends additional force to our arguments. In 1888 I occupied more than an hour of the time of the House with detailed accounts of the doings of these gentlemen, and I stand to everything I said then, yet the taxpayers are to be saddled with

    259
    a large sum for the superannuation of gentlemen who have been exercising their functions in such an unsatisfactory manner during the past few years. We, who have devoted some time and attention to the government of Ireland in the last five or six years, will feel it our duty to scrutinise closely, and to strenuously oppose, if necessary, a Bill which proposes to alter the financial position of the Resident Magistrates in Ireland. I hope the First Lord of the Treasury will see his way to say that we shall have the Memorandum asked for.
    MR. BIRRELL: I confess that I am sorry I am here tonight, for, after losing my dinner and my temper, and listening to the whole of the Debate, all I know about the Bill is that it is very different from what was suggested on the Second Reading. There is a well-known say-in of Dr. Johnson, who, when he was asked the meaning of a particular couplet in Pope, said he did not know what it meant, except that it was meant to give pain to some body. I only know that this Bill is to give pleasure to somebody, and who that somebody is we ought to know before we proceed further. I think an indignity has been put upon the Resident Magistrates by putting them at the tail of the Bill after all the other humbler Civil servants. Their names were not even mentioned on the Second Reading, and could it have been reasonably supposed by any fair-minded man that the Bill would benefit anyone except a humble class of Civil Servants? We find that this class of persons, to which natural objection is taken, are to be benefited; and I hope the House will, in justice to itself and to teach Ministers of the Crown that the best way to get measures through the House is to make a clean breast of it and tell Members what their object is, insist on its right to ask you, Sir, to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
    MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I only rise to point out the extraordinary self-contradiction in the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury. He told us, as an apology for the present position of the Government
    260
    in this Debate, that there were only two or three exceptional classes of pensioners which would be dealt with by the Bill, and then within three minutes afterwards he said—I believe I give his own words—that the Bill would include "Resident Magistrates and all classes of public servants." That is only another instance of what we have before observed with regard to the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues—namely, that they, practically speaking, come before the House and the Committee knowing nothing of the effect of their own Bills. The Secretary to the Treasury gave us what he called a concrete instance. I will, from the First Lord's mouth, give a concrete instance to show the absurdity of saying that this Bill is only to provide for one or two exceptional classes. I ask if that be the object of the Bill, why is the vast class of the pensioned officers of the Government of India brought in? They are drawing in pensions at present to the amount of no less than £3,300,000 a year, and are now without the benefit of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman knew that all these public servants would benefit by it, and yet he had the audacity to say that the Bill would only benefit two or three exceptional classes, and he does not give one word of explanation as to why the pensioners from India, already drawing over three millions sterling, have been obviously unnecessarily brought into the Bill.
    MR. MACNEILL: I rise to support the Motion to report Progress, in order that there may be, in the interval between this and the next Sitting of the Committee, a Memorandum supplied to show us explicitly what public servants are to be benefited by the Bill, and in what manner. At length we have before us the Bill to protect the Resident Magistrates; this is the veiled, but real, intention of the Bill, and the Memorandum would show how many of them are to benefit. Eighteen months ago it came to my knowledge, from practically official sources, that the right hon. Gentleman, who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland, had given an

    261
    undertaking to the Resident Magistrates to provide for them before his Government went out of office. The moment I heard that I gave the right hon. Gentleman ample opportunity of contradicting it if it were true—everyone who has had five or six years' experience of question and answer with the right hon. Gentleman will know that that is not an Irish bull, but is absolutely true. I wrote to the Daily News instantly, making the allegation, and also wrote a second letter, and they have not been contradicted from that day to this. But on the eve of the death of this Parliament comes this Bill, the true intention of which is to provide for the Resident Magistrates. The Memorandum asked for would show that no less than two-thirds of these 73 gentlemen have been in the Civil Service in India or elsewhere. Now that I have the right hon. Gentleman face to face, perhaps he will say whether or not I slandered him in saying in the Daily News that he was determined to protect the Resident Magistrates, and that we were as resolutely determined to oppose him?
    SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I do not intend to prolong the discussion beyond a moment or two; but I do urge on the First Lord of the Treasury—as to whom much has been said by my hon. Friend who has spoken from below the Gangway, and who certainly has shown, on the assumption of greater responsibility, wider and greater consideration to arguments addressed to him than when holding a former and less responsible position than that which he now occupies—to accept the Motion to report Progress. I think enough has been disclosed in this discussion to make it apparent that if the House had realised what were the real nature and scope of this Bill the arguments advanced against the Second Reading would have been different from those which were actually adduced, and we should not have had that Closure which a good many Members of this House now regret. Appeals have been made, none of which have been answered by those who have spoken from the Government
    262
    Benches. It has been asked what are the classes which it is intended to benefit by this Bill? I cannot suppose that my right hon. Friend whose name is upon the back of this Bill, the Secretary to the Treasury, and those who have instructed him, had not in their minds, definitely and clearly, not the case of the gentleman who occupies the position of a warder in some part of Kent or the Isle of Man—because that case has been obviously got up for the purposes of this discussion. I cannot but suppose that my right hon. Friend and those who have instructed him—or who have informed him, if he objects to the word "instructed"—are thoroughly aware of the classes whom it is intended should be benefited by this Bill. What are these classes? Let it be fully and frankly stated by my right hon. Friend what these classes are. By the language which he has used, it would be made to appear that this was an extremely narrow application of the pension scheme, and that this proposal was only to apply to a little branch of the Civil Service. I think it cannot be supposed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom more than one appeal has been made in this matter, has put his name or caused his name to be put on the back of this Bill without having submitted to him some Memorandum as to what the proposed increased cost of this measure would be to the taxation of the country, if it were passed. He has been appealed to to give these particulars, and he has not responded to the appeal. Lastly, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said this Bill did not contravene any of the recommendations of the Committee that sat in 1888. While I am not going to discuss the merits of the Bill as a whole on a Motion to report Progress, I may say that I think the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in that respect. Sub-section 2 of Clause 1 in distinct terms provides that—
    "The allowance or gratuity of superannuation to any person is to be such as might be granted to him if his whole service had been in the public office from which he ultimately retires."

    263
    The recommendation of the Committee is this—
    "We think, on the whole, the case would be met by fixing the pension in proportion to the average salary for the last ten years."
    It has been suggested—I do not know with what truth—that this is only an attempt on the part of the Government to put their Irish house in order, and to provide for the case of the Removable Magistrates. Let me put a case. A man begins with a salary of £300 a year. He shows what I will call extreme zeal in his office, and he is promoted to an appointment worth £600; and ultimately he is promoted to a position worth £1,000 a year. He has got that position only a year ago; and yet, under this Bill, he would be entitled to have a superannuation allowance, not upon the average service or salary of the last ten years, but on the last salary—namely, the maximum salary of £1,000 a year. I do submit, on the whole, that this is a case in which the right hon. Gentleman would be wise to yield to a demand which I submit is reasonable under the circumstances of the case, and let us know more about the history of this Bill, its real object, and its probable cost to the country before we proceed further with it.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): As my right hon. Friend has already stated to the House, it would be perfectly impossible to arrive at any such estimate, as these are exceptional cases. There are But a few cases which have come under the notice of the Treasury, such as the case suggested by my right hon. Friend, so few indeed that a very few thousand pounds would meet the whole of them. The hon. Member spoke as if a whole body were going to be affected by this Bill; but there will only be isolated men—a few men in a very large body, who might possibly be affected. The whole object of this Bill is to insure that transfer from one Department to another, where the pension arrangements are different, shall not inflict loss upon a man so transferred, so that he shall not lose his pension to which he would otherwise be entitled. That would apply to all
    264
    branches of the Civil Service, but will mainly apply to the cases pointed out by my right hon. Friend, and these are the most numerous cases. So far as I can make out, hon. Members opposite have got hold of a bogey. I can assure hon. Members that really the whole question is a small one, that it applies only to single individuals who are in a special position, and that there is no intention whatever to change by this Bill the general pension arrangements of this country. As regards the argument which has been submitted by the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, and who says that Sub-section 2, Clause 1, runs counter to the recommendation of the Royal Commission which has done such great service, I would point this out to the Committee. If the recommendation of the Royal Commission is carried out—namely, that it is the average salary of the last ten years, and not of the last three years, which should be allowed to count for pension, then that must apply to the whole of the Civil Service, and not only to those transferred from one branch of the Service to another. But this proposal does not run counter to the general recommendation of the Committee; it is only a remedy for the particular grievance of those transferred from one place to another. I do not see—and I think hon. Members will agree with me—why in the case of a transfer the same number of years should not apply as would apply in a case where no transfer has taken place. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton that I have done my utmost, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury has done his utmost, to carry out the spirit and the views of the Royal Commission. If we considered that this Bill ran counter to the recommendations of that Commission, we should not have introduced this Bill, or given our sanction to it. All we wish to do by this Bill is to put a man who has been transferred in the same position as a man who has served continuously in one branch of the public service, and to remove that public grievance that you cannot transfer a man unless you make him sacrifice his pension, and therefore that you cannot promote

    265
    a man whom you otherwise wish to promote in the interest of the public service, but must either limit your choice, or accept the other alternative of inflicting an injustice on a man who has served for a certain number of years. I assure the Committee that I have now stated frankly and in a straightforward way that the object of this Bill is simply to put men who have been transferred to a Department where different pension arrangements exist, as far as we could, under the same rule as those who have served continuously under one Department.
    MR. STOREY: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained that this is a small Bill. If I thought that this was a small Bill I should withdraw the Motion which I made some time ago. But I think one is entitled to make this remark—if the Bill is a small Bill and touches the interests of so few and so poor persons, I think it is a remarkable fact that a Government which is so greatly in arrear with its public work, and has important Bills which it is yearning to bring before the country, should absolutely force this little peddling Bill on the House. I must say that the draft on my credulity which the Secretary to the Treasury made was large; but in that respect the Chancellor of the Exchequer has exceeded him. I must say that I am very well content with the discussion that has taken place, and I think I have a good right to be, because we have been enabled to show that there is much more in this Bill than the Secretary to the Treasury would have us believe. I do not know what the views of my hon. Friend may be; but, for my own part, I should be very well content now to go to a Division.
    MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I think the real difficulty of this evening has arisen out of this point—that we had not a Second Reading Debate on this Bill. When the hon. Member for Peterborough distinctly drew the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton should
    266
    have an opportunity of discussing this Bill—in spite of that, he went with what I consider indecent haste and rushed through the Second Reading by means of the Closure. He immediately went and put down the Bill for next day. He got the Speaker out of the Chair by the ordinary Rules of the House, and proceeded to thrust the whole of this Bill down our throats, without our having any opportunity of putting down Amendments or discussing it in any particulars whatever. What is the scope of the Bill so far as we have heard? We have listened with attention to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has told us just now that there are only a few isolated cases that are covered by this Bill. If only a few isolated cases are to be covered by this Bill, as he wishes us to believe, these isolated cases can be put clearly and definitely before the House; and we should not be asked to vote for a Bill with general provisions, such as this Bill contains, if there are only a few isolated cases, as the right hon. Gentleman insinuates. But I take it that the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer shows the necessity of your reporting Progress more thoroughly than any argument urged from our side. He has told us that there is a very small scope indeed to this Bill, and that it will affect only a few isolated cases. We ought to give him the opportunity which he must require of laying before the House the necessary information with regard to those few isolated cases. We read this Bill, so far as it is placed in our hands, to have very wide and very far-reaching conditions contained within it. If we are wrong, then let us have full information with regard to it before we are asked to discuss any clause in it, so that we may know exactly where we are. If we are right, then we have justified our position. But I do not think, so far as the Debate has gone, anything has been said from the Ministerial Benches to show us that if we pass this Bill as it is at present we shall not be pledging this House to very far-reaching propositions indeed, and we shall not really know what we have done towards pledging the taxpayers of this country. I want to know

    267
    —for I cannot find it in the scope of this Bill—what class of Civil Servants is included in it. I want to know whether it brings them all in, or whether those who are of the industrial classes in the service of the Government are covered, and will have an opportunity of reaping any benefit under it as well as those who have had the benefit of holding office in high places and high favour, and with high salaries. The whole of the clauses are a set of general propositions which may be applied just as the Government of the day cares to apply them, and which may be ignored just as the Government of the day cares to ignore them. And I think we should be neglecting our duty as the guardians of the Public Purse if we allowed a Bill of this description to pass through the House until we have been supplied with all the necessary information to enable us to understand the measure. What is the course of the Government? To attempt, as they have done, without any information whatever, to pass this Bill. There was no real information in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we are expected to swallow this Bill without any information. I think the best thing the Government can do is to give way to the evident opinion of Members on this side of the House. At present the Government do not seem to care to give us that information. The Chancellor of the Exchequer chided Members on this side of the House for believing that there was a large sum of money involved in this Bill. He said it was only a question of a few thousands of pounds. Then, I say we ought to know where those few thousands of pounds are to go to, and to know whether we are committing ourselves to anything else. If it is only a question of a few thousands of pounds, it can easily be set out in a Memorandum, which can be prepared in the next few days, and then we can enter upon the Committee stage of this Bill with a clear mind, knowing exactly where we are going to. I ask the First Lord of the Treasury to give us this information which we desire. I am sure as Leader of the House he would be facilitating very much the progress of the measure in which he
    268
    seems, or his Government seem to be deeply concerned. He must expect us to feel rather sore with regard to this Bill, and to resent the way in which the Second Reading was got. I know if he were sitting on this side he would be one of the first Members to resent the way in which this Bill has been thrust upon the House, and he must give us credit for holding the same sentiments. I do not know whether he intends to listen to the rational request of the Members on this side, and to the very strong reference which has been made with regard to the Report of the Commission of 1883. It has been pointed out over and over again that this Bill goes contrary to the Report of that Commission. I ask him distinctly and clearly whether he intends that we shall fight this Bill to the bitter end? If he will not listen to our request, then he must be prepared that on every Amendment we move to this Bill we shall fight with determination and as long as we possibly can, because we do not know to what we are being committed. I am not going into the question as to whether this Bill has been put down to stop legislation. I am astounded at the proceedings of the Government not with regard to this Bill, but with regard to other Bills. They say they have a large programme—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member has made a very rambling speech wholly disconnected with the Bill.
    MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I am very sorry if I have been rambling. I will refer to the Bill directly. I want information before I go into Committee on this Bill with regard to how far the country is pledged under it. I read Section 2 of Clause 1 and I say its scope is of such a character that we have no information before the House enabling us to vote upon it. That information should have been given in the Second Reading of the Bill, and we have a right to ask for it now. I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether we are to have more definite information than we have had with regard to this clause. I have tried to base my criticism upon the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I particularly took

    269
    his sentences to reply to. I did not invent sentences of my own. It was his remark and not mine about the few thousand pounds; it was his remark and not mine that only a few persons were concerned under the scope of the Bill.
    (11.30.) Mr. A. J. BALFOUR rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I have to thank the First Lord of the Treasury for this.
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    (11.33.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 170; Noes 112.—(Div. List, No. 106.)
    Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    (11.45.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 171.—(Div. List, No. 107.)
    DR. TANNER: As one of the Members who opposed this Bill at the previous stage, I cannot but be gratified at this magnificent exposé of the hand of the Government. If anything can add to the scathing rebuke the Government have received this evening, it will be the Amendment I have to move. I propose to change the words "one month" in the first clause, as the period after the passing of the Act when the Treasury may make their regulations, to "twelve months." With most indecent haste the Government have endeavoured to press forward this Bill. The Debate on the Second Reading was closured when we had had the Bill before us for only half-an-hour, and now in Committee the first proposition we come to is that the Bill shall take effect in one month from its passing. With this haste we at once suspect some sinister design, and possibly this is that the period shall cover the time before a Dissolution of Parliament, so that the Government may be enabled to make provision for their protégés, their
    270
    "sisters, their cousins, and their aunts," at the shortest possible notice. So, with good reason for it, I, with the greatest pleasure, move this Amendment to provide that twelve months shall elapse before action maybe taken under the Bill. In the first drafting of my Amendment, I put down a period of "six" months; but going more carefully through the Bill in the brief time at our disposal, I found that in the second clause, in dealing with the extension of the Rules to Indian employments, I had to put down a period of twelve months, and, to be logical in the carrying out of my view, I must move to make the period in this clause twelve months also. My desire is, that the Bill shall not come into force until the present Government shall be out of office, and will be unable to make use of the Bill for the payment of their employees for past services rendered. I mean, particularly, those Removable Magistrates in Ireland who have acted as gaolers to some of us—men promoted from other Departments to carry out the duties of the office thrust upon them. I desire that these creatures of the present Administration shall not have this payment until another Government shall have come into power, and shall have the opportunity of investigating the merits or demerits of the claimants. I am not going to talk out my own Amendment—I shall stand to my guns. I have found out the Government in a trick, trying to carry a job; and I want them to understand that, bowing to your ruling, Mr. Courtney, I shall do my utmost in what I consider my duty to show up the nefarious plot hatched by the Government, to drag forth to light all the hidden works of darkness which have been concealed under the studied utterances of the Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The more we probe these utterances with Amendments such as these, the more jobbery will be revealed, and the House will discover and condemn this last action of unjust stewardship before its authors are finally dismissed by the constituencies.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 5, to leave out the words "one

    271
    month," and insert the words "twelve months."—(Dr. Tanner.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'one month' stand part of the Clause."
    COLONEL NOLAN: I have an Amendment to propose before that. I put it in writing before the Clerk at the Table. It is practically the same Amendment, but—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! No Amendment has reached me—
    COLONEL NOLAN: I put it before the Clerk.
    THE CHAIRMAN: No Amendment has reached me. The hon. and gallant Member should have interposed before. He has allowed his hon. Colleague to make his speech and Motion, and the Question before the Committee now is, "That 'one month' stand part of the Clause."
    It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  BARGEOWNERS, &c., LIABILITY BILL. (No. 211.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. CAUSTON: I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill, and I may state that the President of the Board of Trade has assented to the suggestion that it shall be referred to a Select Committee, together with the Watermen's and Lightermen's Company Bill. The proposal for a Select Committee comes from the promoters of the latter Bill, and I shall be glad to agree to it.
    MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: That is the arrangement, and upon this understanding I hope the Bill will be allowed to proceed.
    Objection being taken,
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  SCHOOL BOARD FOR LONDON (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.—(No. 96.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR ROWNTREE: As a Member of the Select Committee now considering this subject, I respectfully put it to the House that it is very undesirable that a Bill dealing with a subject specially referred to a Select Committee should be pressed forward at this time. That Committee is now considering its Report, and I think this a sufficient objection to taking the Bill now.
    Objection being taken,
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

    SOLICITORS' APPRENTICES (IRELAND) (COMMISSIONERS' REPORT).
    MR. SEXTON: I am informed by the Secretary to the Treasury that while he is willing to give the Reports of the Commissioners he is not willing to give the evidence given before the Commission. I shall inquire if that will be sufficient for the parties concerned, and will put down a Notice of Motion for Monday.
  ORDNANCE SURVEY.

    SELECT COMMITTEE. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [4th May], "That the Order [11th February] that a Select Committee on the Ordnance Survey be appointed, be read, and discharged."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Order discharged.

    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.—(No. 256.)
    Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

    SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.—(No. 258.)
    Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
    House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

SAT FIRST.
The Earl of Denbigh, after the death of his father.
The Lord Heytesbury, after the death of his grandfather.
The Lord Romilly, after the death of his father.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ORDER (GLASGOW, &c.) BILL— [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order); amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
POLYNESIAN LABOUR IN QUEENSLAND.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, your Lordships may have observed that it has been reported that the Government of Queensland is about to take steps for the renewal of the importation of Polynesian labourers, usually I think called Kanakas, into that colony. The subject is one of considerable gravity, and I have no doubt it has occupied the attention of the Colonial Office, and that the noble Lord the Secretary of State will be glad of an opportunity of giving some explanation as to the course which is to be taken. This immigration went on for a considerable number of years, and I regret to say that it was attended with very serious abuses. There are two kinds of abuse which may arise from an immigration of that kind. One is as to the circumstances under which the labourers are recruited, and the other is as to the treatment of them after they arrive in the colony. To take the second point first, I am far from supposing that the employers in Queensland are in any way inferior in humanity to employers generally; but it has been found that where coloured labour of an inferior race is employed,
  142
  unless very careful measures are, taken, there is apt to be, oppression and hardship, if not even cruelty. Your Lordships are well aware that there is an extensive coolie emigration from India to our colonies, which has always been watched with the utmost possible care and rigour by the Government of India, who will not allow coolies to be imported into our colonies without the most stringent measures being taken for their good treatment. I am happy to believe that those measures have been successful, and that in our colonies the coolies are well treated, and that there is no reason to complain in that respect. But the Government of India always hold in their hands a most powerful engine, namely, that at any moment, if they are not satisfied as to the treatment of the coolies—either during the passage, or after their arrival in the colony—they at once threaten—and they would not hesitate to execute the threat—that they will stop the whole emigration; and, as regards foreign countries, when they have obtained permission to import coolies into their colonies, the same powers exist. I mention that to show how necessary such precautions are. I do not, however, doubt that the Government of Queensland will take effective measures for the protection of the labourers after they arrive in the colony. That is a matter entirely within their own power; the labourers are there within the colony itself, and a due vigilance on the part of the Government would no doubt prevent any abuse on the part of those who employ the labourers. But the case is very different with regard to the recruitment of the labourers in the Polynesian Islands. A Commission of Inquiry that took place some years ago showed that there had been most grave abuses and most shocking cruelty connected with the recruitment; and it is evident that, whatever precautions you may take, it is exceedingly difficult to prevent such abuses; dealing as recruiters do with those who are in fact savages, and, owing to the conditions under which they are to be employed, abuses are almost sure to arise. But worse than that, it was very often found in past times,—I hope it was

  143
  not so in the more recent years before the immigration was stopped,—that there was a distinct kidnapping of labourers, and that, in point of fact, it did not at one time differ very much from the slave trade. My Lords, the matter is not one for which the Government of Queensland is alone responsible, because it has no jurisdiction on the high seas or in the islands from which these labourers are to be recruited. The responsibility therefore must rest to a certain extent upon the Imperial Government to see that the regulations as far as possible are such as will prevent abuses. I trust the regulations will prevent abuses; that they will reduce them very much I have no doubt; but I regret to say that, after the experience I had formerly on this subject, I am afraid no measures will prevent some abuses arising. My Lords, this is not a matter which concerns us alone, because no doubt our proceedings will be very carefully watched by foreign nations. We have always shown the greatest jealousy of any immigration that could partake in the slightest degree of slave recruiting, and it is not surprising, or perhaps unreasonable, that foreign nations should view with great jealousy, and even some surprise, the fact that we should sanction a traffic attended by the evils that this traffic unfortunately brings with it. I do not wish at all to exaggerate the matter, and I fully recognise that in the position in which Queensland is, having very large territories where the climate is tropical and cannot be properly cultivated by white labour, the prosperity of the colony seriously depends upon its obtaining labour from the islands. I remember that application was made some time ago to the Government of India to sanction coolie immigration; I do not know what the result was, but I suppose there was some obstacle in the way which prevented its being allowed. If it were possible to make arrangements by which an immigration of Indian coolies could take place, I should view these proceedings with infinitely less suspicion; I believe that an emigration of coolies from India might be so regulated from the nature of the case—the jurisdiction being in the hands of the Government of India,
  144
  and they having in their hands the power to stop the emigration if any abuses arose—that there would be no hardship or oppression, but an advantage to the coolies who might go to Queensland, and also to Queensland itself. However, if we cannot see our way to some such immigration, and, if it is thought right, after full consideration, that this immigration of Kanakas should be renewed, I hope and trust and believe that Her Majesty's Government will take every precaution in their power to prevent, as far as possible, the abuses which I am afraid are almost certain to attend such recruitment in these islands. My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies with reference to the reported intention of the Government of Queensland to renew the recruitment of Polynesian labourers for service in that colony, what safeguards will be taken to prevent the abuses which attended such recruitment in former years?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My Lords, in reply to the noble Earl, I have to state that I have not yet received any copy of the Act, which I believe has been passed by the Queensland Legislature with reference to the renewal of the employment of Kanakas. I am therefore unable to inform your Lordships what precautions have been taken to guard against the abuses which, some years ago, attended that system; nor am I able to judge whether those precautions are likely to be sufficient. I may, however, say that I feel satisfied that the Colonial Government must have given very careful attention to this special branch of the subject; and in support of this view I may refer to different statements which have appeared in the papers, and which have been made by Sir Samuel Griffith, the Premier of Queensland. It will be remembered that Sir Samuel Griffith for many years opposed this labour system; but last year he saw reason to change his opinion, and to support the renewal of the system, on the ground, as I gather, referred to by the noble Earl, that it is found impossible to carry on the sugar industry in Queensland with white labour only, and that it is necessary, therefore,

  145
  to introduce native labour. I may, also mention, as another ground for my belief that the Queensland Government must have paid close, attention to this, subject, that the Admiral on that station, Lord Charles Scott, was asked by the Government to report upon the subject and to favour them with any suggestions which he could make, which would tend to prevent any abuse arising from the recruiting, and he not only forwarded a Report of his own opinion and suggestions, but also sent a Report and opinion of Captain Davis who has had considerable experience in the Polynesian Islands. There can be no doubt that the Queensland Government will consider those Reports, and, looking to the interest that has been taken in the question, the Colonial Government must have been fully alive, not only to the difficulties of the case, but to the necessity of taking ample precautions to prevent the recurrence of such abuses as the noble Earl referred to. Perhaps I may be allowed, before I sit down, to remove what I think is a misapprehension upon this subject. The noble Earl has explained that the question must be considered first as regards the recruiting of natives, and secondly as regards their treatment when they are on the plantations. I am happy to say as regards the second side of the subject, that, so far as we are informed, there has been no question that these natives when employed on the plantations have been well treated. We have had no representations to the contrary, and, although I desired that a search should be made, we do not find any official complaints of the treatment of natives when once they were on the plantations. I would also like to mention, as confirming this view, that, while the number of labourers who have been imported in the last few years has distinctly increased, the mortality has largely decreased; that there was in the Savings Bank on the 31st December, 1890, a sum of £17,659 to the credit of the islanders who were then in Queensland, and that nearly £2,000 was spent in 1890 on hospitals alone for these labourers. I mention these facts as confirming the view, which I understand the noble Earl to share, that there is no
  146
  fault to find with the treatment of the natives in the colony. Then, my Lords, the abuses to which the noble Earl has referred, and which have received most justly the strong condemnation, I think I may say, of the civilised world, were entirely confined to the system of recruiting labourers in the islands. Those abuses came to light in 1884 when the Government agent, and the recruiting agent, the captain, and some of the crew of the vessel Hopeful were tried in Queensland for offences committed in the recruiting by that vessel. Two of the men—the second mate and boatswain—were tried for murder and sentenced to death, though their sentence was afterwards commuted to penal servitude for life; and five others were also sentenced to penal servitude, two I think for life, and three for shorter terms. Then came the Commission to which the noble Earl referred, which reported early in 1885; but I desire to call attention to the fact that the Commissioners were not instructed to inquire into the subject generally, but were required to report upon the voyages made by six vessels including the Hopeful. The abuses which were reported upon by that Commission, some of which had also been brought forward at the trial of the crew of the Hopeful, were of a shameful character; but considering that these abuses were confined to certain voyages, and bearing in mind that the natives were taken from special groups of islands close to New Guinea, and which have now been annexed to British New Guinea, I think it is perhaps hardly fair to condemn the whole system of recruitng on account of those very serious abuses. And I think it is fair to argue thus, because since 1885 the recruiting has been going on, and, as I have said, an increased number of natives has been introduced each year into Queensland, and yet there has been no representation and no complaint of any abuse, except it may be of some partial infringement of the regulations. Certainly no complaint of any serious infringement of the regulations has, so far as I am aware, been brought to our notice. It is to be hoped, therefore, that the convictions and sentences passed in 1884 and the very careful inquiry subsequently

  147
  made by the Commission will serve as a deterrent and warning to men who would be inclined to commit such abuses again. I do not think, my Lords, that any good will be gained by my now pointing out what precautions and what conditions Her Majesty's Government would look forin the Queensland Act, because I am not yet aware what precautions have been inserted. I believe it to be really necessary for Queensland that native labour should be introduced. I think there is a great deal of force in what the noble Earl has said, that if coolies could be introduced we should have the assistance of the Indian Government to help us in preventing the recurrence of any abuses. But in any case it is clearly the duty of the Queensland Government to see that every precaution is taken to avoid the recurrence of the abuses in the recruiting; to secure the continuance of good treatment of these natives in the colony; and to secure their safe return. I can assure your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government will support the Queensland Government in any precautions, however stringent, to effect those objects, and will also, as the noble Earl desires, pay special attention to this question when the Queensland Act is before them.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: If I may be allowed one remark, the answer of the noble Lord is in many respects satisfactory; but I observe that he speaks only of supporting the Queensland Government. According to my view I do not think that the Queensland Government alone is concerned, but the Imperial Government. It is quite clear that this immigration can only go on with the permission of the Imperial Government. I am not saying that it ought to be refused; but I do say that the Imperial Government ought to see that the precautions which are taken are sufficient, and such as it thinks ought to warrant it in permitting this immigration to take place.
  *LORD KNUTSFORD: I did not make myself quite clear. What I mean by supporting the Queensland Government is that there maybe a certain party in the colony who would oppose stringent regulations, and I mean that we should therefore support any regulations that are in the Act. I do not at all desire
  148
  to shirk the responsibility of the Imperial Government in considering this question.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Five o'clock.